Re: How to improve the readability of (any) LISP or any highlevel functional language to the level of FORTH ?

[Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm>]

I am voting for RPL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPL_(programming_language)

m_l_g3 schrieb:
> On Jan 1, 10:04 am, girosenth<girose...@india.com>  wrote:
>> How to improve the readability of (any) LISP or any highlevel
>> functional language to the level of FORTH ?
>
> ...
>>
>> How do you make it readable ?
> ...
>>
>> (f (g (h (j (k (l ops)))...)))
>
> (e
>     (f
>        (g (h i)
>           (j k l)
>        )
>        (m (n o (p q))
>           (r (s t) u)
> )  )  )
>
> The rule: if you don't see the closing paren moving the eyes down,
> it's on the right.
> But it either to the right or down, no other option.
>
> Since closing parens are visually identical, there's no need to one
> line per paren;
> this is shown at the last line (yes, their visual and logical
> orderings are different,
> but they are identical parens otherwise worth only counting!).
>
>
>
>> Is there a postfix functional language that also gets rid of parens
>> and is not as primitive as FORTH or POSTSCRIPT ?
>
> There is a prefix/infix one: Haskell with its ($) and (.) operators
> and... well... monads.
>
> As to Forth, you may try to layout control structures on the right,
> as if RPN is not enough:
>
> : MAX   2dup>       if
>              drop    else
>              nip     then
> ;
>
> : foo
>    10 0               do
>       i 3 mod 0= if
>          i .     then loop
> ;
>
>