Not everyone is used to read that math notation. Is like say: "Why put it in JS instead of assembler?". JS is probably the most universal language out there (at least in terms of widespread).
I prefer this stuff in python. Less syntax, more clear. But then, is the same thing: You imagine your (math) syntax is better, I think is python, somebody will complain why not haskell, but js is more practical. Or, is just the one the OP like. That is probably the only and best reason.
> Not everyone is used to read that math notation.
Agreed, but it doesn't take more than a couple of sentences to describe the entire syntax of the λ-calculus. It's not hard to pick it up even if you've never encountered it before.
Contrast that with JavaScript, where even as someone who has written my fair share of it, my eyes tend to glaze over when they hit a string of `});}))());};`. Yet people happily write that sort of thing, then turn around and complain about nested parentheses in Lisp!
Comments
Not everyone is used to read that math notation. Is like say: "Why put it in JS instead of assembler?". JS is probably the most universal language out there (at least in terms of widespread).
I prefer this stuff in python. Less syntax, more clear. But then, is the same thing: You imagine your (math) syntax is better, I think is python, somebody will complain why not haskell, but js is more practical. Or, is just the one the OP like. That is probably the only and best reason.
> Not everyone is used to read that math notation.
Agreed, but it doesn't take more than a couple of sentences to describe the entire syntax of the λ-calculus. It's not hard to pick it up even if you've never encountered it before.
Contrast that with JavaScript, where even as someone who has written my fair share of it, my eyes tend to glaze over when they hit a string of `});}))());};`. Yet people happily write that sort of thing, then turn around and complain about nested parentheses in Lisp!