Artyom BologovMay 10
Thinking on a new syntax for #Scheme. Distinguishing feature: insignificant indentation! Because it’s hard to edit #Wisp in ed.
Show threadDigital Mark λ ☕️ 🫈 🚀 🌗

@aartaka Since Scheme is in some respects a dialect of ALGOL, just replace all the parens with BEGIN/END, & any uppercased symbol has an implicit BEGIN.

DEFINE tf LAMBDA BEGIN test END
IF EQUAL? test #t END
DISPLAY "yes" END
DISPLAY "no" END
END END END

#scheme #algol #end

May 11 at 12:00amWeb
Show threadArtyom BologovMay 11
@mdhughes that’s almost what I have in mind, though I do include some shortcuts and prettifications in my idea.
Show threadrestoranteMay 11

@mdhughes

But, does that mean the majority of 'modern' programming languages are all descendant of ALGOL?

That is very interesting. I read some ALGOL code and I love them.

@aartaka

Show threadDigital Mark λ ☕️ 🫈 🚀 🌗May 11

@restorante @aartaka Pretty much, but most just took the control structures from ALGOL, not lexical scoping or function references. Scheme got all of it.

Like, C is a mix of ASM & ALGOL, & some FORTRAN-isms.

Show threadKirtai 🏳️‍⚧️6d ago
@mdhughes @restorante @aartaka
I have to wonder how much Smalltalk got.
Show threadCees de Groot6d ago

@kirtai @mdhughes @restorante @aartaka Smalltalk's control structures are pretty much all higher-order polymorphic functions. I mean, it's a functional language in OO-clothing, so I'd call it quite far from ALGOL.

My modern favorite Lisp-with-ALGOL syntax is Elixir, btw. And don't forget that LISP 2, which never happened, was slated to have ALGOL syntax so you're standing on the shoulders of giants if you do that :-)

Show threadKirtai 🏳️‍⚧️6d ago
@cdegroot @mdhughes @restorante @aartaka
It's a pity we tend to stand on each other's feet instead 
Show threadArtyom BologovMay 11

@restorante that’s why Lisp programmers sometimes say “ALGOL family” when speaking of the other camp. And calling Common Lisp loop macro “ALGOL-like.”

@mdhughes