For a long time, it was considered fairly obvious, I think, that syntax didn’t really matter. It was just the surface skin over the underlying ideas. In recent times, though, the prevailing wisdom has reversed, and it is now quite common to hear people talk about how “syntax matters”.

While I don’t exactly disagree, I think that the importance of trivial syntactic matters is generally overemphasized. It is not a matter of life and death whether or not semicolons are required to end a line, for example, or whether parentheses are required in making a call.

Naturally, like all programmers, I have strong opinions on these topics myself—or at least I used to. But I’ve found over time that one gets used to these matters quickly enough, for the most part. But I think there is a deeper sense in which syntax can matter.

Basically, there are some languages whose syntax is so distinctive that it makes a qualitative difference to the experience of programming. In this case, having a different syntax can enable something otherwise very challenging—or sometimes make simple things extremely difficult. Three examples come immediately to mind, I’m sure there are more.

Lisp

Lisp (and its derivatives: scheme, clojure, etc) is a common example. The Lisp family of languages is fairly unique in that the syntax of programs is also the same syntax of the data structures in the language (oddly, XSLT is the only other example I can think of; but I’m sure there are more). This is sometimes, and somewhat grandiously, referred to as the “homoiconic” property.

Homoiconicity makes it possible to have a very simple macro system which can seamlessly integrate with the language. This is simply very, very challenging to do with a more traditional C-like syntax. So, in this case, syntax really matters.

Smalltalk

Most languages pass the parameters to a method using a position notation. This may be written with parentheses ( foo(a, b, c) ) or without ( foo a b c ) but the idea is basically the same. Smalltalk took a different approach. In Smalltalk, each parameter is labeled, and the name of the method as a whole is the concatenation of all of these labels. So you don’t write foo.open("abc", true, false) but rather foo open:"abc" read:true write:false . This may seem like a small change, but it is not. It has far-reaching consequences; consequences which I think are not fully appreciated. For example, it is no accident that Smalltalk pioneered most of the powerful refactorings we associate with Java and other statically typed languages today—method names in Smalltalk are long and generally unique, so you don’t need full type information for the compiler to reliably trace them.

Another effect of this convention is to make certain classes of errors impossible. For example, one simply cannot provide the wrong number of parameters to a method (the method name would not match). Similarly, it is obvious what each parameter means and in what order they should go. With a call like foo.open("abc", true, false) , the reader has no idea what true and false signify. When the call looks like this, foo.open("abc", write, read) , the reader thinks they know what write and read signify, but without seeing the source of the method, they can’t know for sure. In fact, here, I reversed the order. This kind of error is surprisingly common, as an old colleague of mine described in a paper. But this error is unthinkable in Smalltalk, as you would have to write foo openFile:"abc" read:write write:read , making it quite clear that something was amiss.

Fortress

I had the good fortune of talking to some of the guys on the Fortress team a while back. Fortress is home to some very interesting ideas—parallel evaluation by default, for example!—and one of them is that mathematical programs ought to be written in mathematical notation, or something very close to it. I can see that this is a very appealing notion for mathematicians and physicists, as it will help to lower the impedance barrier between the program and the theory it models. But it is also interesting for the developers of Fortress, since mathematical notation is incredibly overloaded—meaning that they are developing all manner of interesting new dynamic overloading resolution techniques to make this whole thing work. So in this case, the syntax is a mixed bag: it makes some things easier (translating math) and some things harder (defining the language semantics).

The siren call of pretty syntax

So yes, I do think syntax can matter. But most of the time it doesn’t. This is not to say I am immune to the appeal of pretty syntax (I’m as guilty as everyone else), nor that prettiness doesn’t matter at all. But mostly it’s a matter of familiarity. Like anything else, a new language will look a bit different, and you have to get used to it. (Even Objective C looks pretty good to me now, for crying out loud!) Sometimes, though, things still seem hard to read even after you’ve been hacking in the language for a while: these are things that need changing.

It is important, however, to distinguish between syntax and expressiveness. I don’t care (too much) whether you write function(x) { ... } , \x -> ... or { |x| ... } to denote a closure, but there had better be a way to write a closure somehow! (Java, I’m looking at you here)

It makes me a bit sad that there is so much focus these days on the surface side of syntax—making indentation significant, omitting a semicolon—but rather little on how a change in syntax can actually change the experience of programming in a deeper way.

Aside #1: It is too bad that the genuine advantages of Lisp and Smalltalk syntax do not seem to have been sufficient to win over the familiarity of a generally C-like look-and-feel.

Aside #2: In case you can’t tell, I’m partially responding to the fact that every time somebody posts a link about Rust, somebody else makes some comment about the length of our keywords. My personal favorite is this one, which seems to imply that we Rust developers are involved in some kind of conspiracy—as if we prefer endlessly defending our choice of ret over return rather than, say, our choice of sendable unique pointers over shared memory. Please.

Aside #3: To be clear, I don’t think Rust’s syntax is anything revolutionary. It is basically a C derivative, like so many languages these days.