/prog/ - S-expression HTML as Standard

Name: Anonymous 2013-09-17 13:25

Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to use opening and closing tags as DA STANDARD for SHITML? Are the people at W3 dumb?

For those who don't know what I'm talking about,
look how ugly and unnecessarily long HTML is.

<html>
<head>MY WEBSITE</head>
<title>MY WEBSITE</title>
<body>
<p>THIS KIND OF MARKUP IS <b><i><u>SHIT QUALITY</u></i></b></p>
</body>
</html>

But compared to the S-expressions

(html   (head "MY WEBSITE")
        (title "MY WEBSITE")
        (body (p "THIS MARKUP IS" (b.i.u "SATORI QUALITY"))))

It looks far cleaner and makes your eyes feel right at home. It's easier to parse and won't take up as a few kilobytes / megabytes (depending on the page) less Internet bandwidth. Sure it has a lot of parenthesis but it's more attractive than the repeating shitstorm of </tags>.

I know there are a lot of implementations to this but there should be one STANDARD to rule them all. The next version of HTML in the standard should be something like this.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-05 0:58

>>74
This is the lie functional programmers and Lisp programmers have been telling themselves, that their respective languages never hit the mainstream through historical accident, that C-like languages won through a "worse is better" approach, and that there's a self-reinforcing cycle of unfamiliarity.

Not so, the languages are shit. They at best let you write passable code if you manage to simulate some of the mutability of good languages, but any sufficiently large project will inevitably boil down to a sticky macro and/or operator soup.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-05 1:55

>>81
Your "good languages" make the easy easier, and the difficult impossible.

When you get into massive projects, Lisp will keep you from pulling your hair out. It's enjoyable and productive in the large. Your languages are only "fun" in toy programs.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-05 3:44

>>82

When you get into massive projects, Java will keep you from pulling your hair out. It's enjoyable and productive in the large. Your languages are only "fun" in toy programs.

Now that's more like it!

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 4:50

>>78
For the formatting reasons I explained above, and more importantly because 99.99% of them are going to give up the second they see (+ x y).

Never thought I'd say this on /prog/ but you are seriously overestimating the intelligence of the average computer user.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 8:05

In an alternate dimension, we are using binary formats for our html. Web is not running in debug mode, everyone is happy

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 8:13

>>84
How would they see (+ x y) in HTM fucking L? There aren't any arithmetic operations allowed in current HTML version, so why should there be ones in LispHTML?
Besides, the average computer user doesn't even need to look at HTML.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 9:06

The most important feature is restricting the grammar of any new markup to be decidable by a regular language. An endless number of problems would be solved by simple, finite grammar checkers.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 22:08

>>85
In an alternate dimension, secure sandboxes let everyone run whatever the fuck native code they want so there's no incentive to run everything through a web browser just because it's the only untrusted path that 99.99% of users will accept.

>>86
I thought the entire point of the Lisp web idea was to unify the page content language and the embedded scripting language.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-07 0:55

>>88
That is a truly profound idea. The top level form in the page namespace should evaluate to the form that is used to render the page. Then markup and script become one. You can run arbitrary code in the middle of a ``HTML'' form.

Name: Anonymous 2015-11-07 5:33

>>87
I promise that that will never happen.

Name: Anonymous 2015-12-14 2:32

>>1
SGML did not need closing tags
Well, it did need them but like this: <head>...</>

Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 3:52

Why not M expressions?

Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 4:34

>>92
M expressions are Fortran-inspired shit that people rejected even back in the 1950s.

Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 17:17

>>93
But do you know why? M-expressions make the code readable.
Readability is the last thing you want if you are trying to convince people that Lisp has magical properties and is the only language that can be used for AI.

That's also why they killed LISP 2. Nobody will believe that AI can arise from something they understand.

Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 19:57

>>94
You don't know the first thing about trolling. This shit is anything but "more readable":

 : let var val [
      m-expr;   
      m-expr;   
      m-expr
  ];

Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 20:44

>>91
SGML apologists like you should set themselves on fire.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-01 0:54

>>96
I don't even like SGML, I am simply expressing a truth.
EAT A DICK

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-01 1:02

>>95
It looks somewhat like OCaml.

Name: JEWS 2016-01-01 1:07

Image: markup and client-side scripting in the same language. The web3.14 revolution/future is here.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-01 17:54

Anything that can be expressed in another language can be expressed in XML.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 0:11

The English language should be defined as an XSLT grammar.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 0:25

>>101
Can that handle unrestricted grammars though?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 2:17

>>100
And anything that can be expressed in any programming language can be expressed in Brainfuck.

S-expression HTML as Standard

1 Name: Anonymous 2013-09-17 13:25

81 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-05 0:58

82 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-05 1:55

83 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-05 3:44

84 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 4:50

85 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 8:05

86 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 8:13

87 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 9:06

88 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-06 22:08

89 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-07 0:55

90 Name: Anonymous 2015-11-07 5:33

91 Name: Anonymous 2015-12-14 2:32

92 Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 3:52

93 Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 4:34

94 Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 17:17

95 Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 19:57

96 Name: Anonymous 2015-12-31 20:44

97 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-01 0:54

98 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-01 1:02

99 Name: JEWS 2016-01-01 1:07

100 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-01 17:54

101 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 0:11

102 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 0:25

103 Name: Anonymous 2016-01-02 2:17