Two Thoughts on Lisp Syntax.

;                     1. Lisp has syntax ; ; It is frequently said that Lisp has no syntax. It is simplification: ; there is a syntax, just it is relatively simple and uniform, ; compared to other languages. For example, look at these two ; expressions:                          (setq x 3 y 4)                           (setq (x 3) (y 4))   ; It is easy to imagine that these two expressions have same semantics, ; and that difference is purely syntactic. Even if we use some formal ; definition of syntax. For example, Wikipedia defines syntax as ; ;      "set of rules that defines the combinations of symbols ;       that are considered to be correctly structured programs ;       in that language." ; ; ;                    2. Which syntax is better? ; ; If code is written by programmer, then it is slightly easier ; to use (setq x 3 y 4) form. But if code is generated by program, ; then form (setq (x 3) (y 4)) is more suitable. For example, the ; function that extract variables from the setq expression in the ; form (setq x 3 y 4) might look like    (define (setq-places s)            (let((counter 0)                 (result '()))                                 (dolist(i s)                   (inc counter)                   (when (even? counter)                         (push i result -1))) ; push on the right side                 result))                  ; It is very simple, but verbose code. If I have luck and my Lisp ; supports some  suitable functions, it might be even simpler. However, ; it appears that it is always simpler to extract the variables ; from the form (setq (x 3) (y 4)):         (define (setq-places s)                 (map first (rest s))) ; So, I'd say that overall, form (setq (x 3) (y 4)) is better.

--