On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Alex Baranosky < alexander.barano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that the real question that is: if you know Python and Clojure > equally well, then which is easier to read? > > Alex > > > I know both equally well (actually, I've logged more hours in my life coding in Lisp syntax than other syntaxes), and I still consider Python to be significantly easier to read. A few specific things that hinder Clojure's readability in my opinion: * prefix notation for arithmetic operators defies centuries of mathematical notation conventions and consequently any mathematical formula will be less readable. * introducing variables creates new indenting level, making code "creep to the right" * as code creeps to the right, you need to have a lot more newlines (for example, between each input to a function) to get it to fit on the page. This lengthens the code block making less fit on a page, and also makes the code look a lot different than the exact same code would look if it were appearing in a place that were less indented. * The convention of using hyphens to separate words is hard to read (since - looks like the minus operator) and also takes up more width than camel case, contributing to the problem that you quickly find lines getting too wide and needing to be broken up. * loop/recur is significantly less readable than either the corresponding looping constructs in Python or the named let that Scheme offers, *especially* when you have some sort of nested looping going on, which is extraordinarily difficult to read in Clojure. * cond branches are sometimes written with the test and the answer on the same line, or when the test gets too long you have to write it with the test and answer on subsequent lines; this inconsistent formatting can make it hard to know in long blocks whether you are looking at the test or the answer * Interweavings of cond and let (a common pattern) end up ridiculously indented and hard to read [Grand's flatter cond macro helps with this; I'd love to see this brought into Clojure core] * Decades worth of classic algorithms involving imperative manipulation of arrays look significantly uglier in Clojure, because Clojure intentionally makes imperative manipulation more difficult. I have, for fun, converted many Knuth algorithms to Clojure, and they invariably are far less scrutable than the original. * Expression-oriented syntax (along with the indenting cost of using let) encourages people to pack far too much into one line rather than giving names to intermediate results. * DSLs are supposed to bring customized readable notation to many tasks, but by the time you include namespace prefixes and colons for all the keywords, DSLs don't really look that good. I mean, compare Frinj to Frink. Frinj's integration into Clojure is cool, but is there anyone who considers it even half as readable as Frink? I certainly don't. * I feel really clever when I condense some complex loop into some sort of map/filter/reduce using anonymous functions. And it looks brilliant when I read my own code that does this. But when I read someone else's compact higher-order stuff, it's usually a nightmare to try to interpret what it is doing. Python's loops may be verbose, but I always know exactly what I'm looking at when I read someone else's code. * And the number 1 problem with all Lisps is that when you look at Lisp code, it's a sea of sameness. Function applications, Macros, Control constructs, bindings, data lookups, etc. all look exactly the same. You look at Python code, and you instantly see the control flow of the code, the assignments, the tests, the results, the loops, the data, the data lookups, the breaks. It's organized, but visually distinct. I write code in Clojure because I find the semantics appealing, and I feel I can get more done in less time than a language like Python. "Code as data" might be nice for writing macros, but the reality is that it forces programmers to code in an abstract syntax tree which is more computer friendly than human friendly. If I were given the option to *read* a sample program illustrating some concept in any language of my choice, I would choose Python over Clojure in a heartbeat. All one man's opinion, of course, but I wanted to bring it up because I am someone who has logged many years working in Clojure and related Lisp languages and I still have the opinion that Python is the most readable language I have encountered. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
