Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!shamash!timbuk!dkozak
From: dkozak@mahogany29.cray.com (Darryn Kozak)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Tradition Lisp code formatting
Message-ID: <124942.14634@timbuk.cray.com>
Date: 24 Jun 91 19:20:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: timbuk.124942.14634
References: <20899@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Sender: dkozak@mahogany29 (Darryn Kozak)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Lines: 89


In article <20899@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, sboswell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (....What Is?....) writes:
> I wanted to post this a long time ago but feared starting a flame war.
> But my curiosity has finally gotten the better of me.  I must know. :)
> 
> How did the traditional style of Lisp code turn out to be so crunched
> together?
> 
> In languages like C, the trend has been to space everything out so
> that blocks are visible (see GNU Emacs "c-mode" to see what I mean,
> if you don't.)  I find it much more readable like that.  But in my
> Lisp books, it seems, comparatively, smashed together!  Here's an
> example, from page 115 of _Lisp: 3rd Edition_ by Patrick Henry
> Winston and Berthold Klaus Paul Horn:
> 
> (defun count-outlyers (list-of-elements)
>   (let ((result 0))
>     (dolist (element list-of-elements
> 		     result)
>     (when (or (> elements boiling)
> 	      (< element freezing))
>       (setf result (+ result 1))))))
> 
> I would have formatted it this way:
> 
> (defun count-outlyers (list-of-elements)
>     (let
> 	(
> 	    (result 0)
> 	)
> 	(dolist
> 	    (element list-of-elements result)
> 	    (when
> 		(or
> 		    (> element boiling)
> 		    (< element freezing)
> 		)
> 	        (setf result (+ result 1))
> 	    )
> 	)
>     )
> )
> 
> Whether to split and indent the (element list-of-elements result) is
> usually a matter of whether or not the one-line version makes the
> functionality immediately obvious, to me.  But to me, the functionality
> of let seems much more obvious; the local variable "result" has been
> created, and it's used inside a dolist.  (Incidentally, the only
> reason I put the defun's argument list in the same line is so I can
> do "grep '(defun' file.lisp" from csh to get a list of all the function
> prototypes in the source file.)
> 
> So far, I've only found one other person who formats the way I do,
> and he hates Lisp nowadays :-( so although it's not a very scientific
> conclusion, I'd say there's at least a chance of programmers being
> turned off by Lisp because they feel lost in all the parentheses and
> cannot immediately divine the structure.  (He would get his Lisp
> assignments back from the TA, re-formatted to the traditional way :)
> 
> I crossposted to a few seemingly unrelated newsgroups in the hopes
> of finding people who were disenchanted with Lisp, to ask if this
> was part of the reason.
> 
> Please give me your thoughts on this.  No Holy War(TM) intended. :-|
> 
> Steve Boswell         | This opinion is distributed in the hopes that it
> whatis@ucsd.edu       | will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY...
> whatis@gnu.ai.mit.edu |


I prefer the "smashed" look myself, both for Lisp and C. And there's no need for a Holy War, because I'm right (just a joke folks).

	Have a nice day,

	Darryn J Kozak

	Cray Research Park
	655F Lone Oak Drive
	Eagan, MN  55121
	USA

	dkozak@cray.com

	(612) 683-5244

	ISS (Integrated Support System) Project