🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26463@castle.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@castle.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>
>Now which is easier to read?!!!(Given that you are well versed in both
>notations) Even with such a simple example, it's not obvious that the
>close brackets at the end of the lisp version are enough, where it's
>immediately obivous that the ML version has the correct syntax.
> 

My experience with SML and lisp is exactly the reverse.  I (almost!) never
make syntax errors in lisp, and on the exceedingly rare occasions that I do
I can spot them instantly.

I like SML's pattern matching and type checking, but the syntax is gruesome
-- it's by far the worst part of the language.  Syntax errors in even toy
SML programs have had me pulling out my hair.  SML syntax is messy and
irregular.  Some SML constructs are explicitly delimited, some implicitly.
Yuch.

On another note, to compare the ease of computer manipulation of SML and
lisp programs, consider an SML pretty printer vs a lisp pretty printer.
Also consider the ease of implementing and using macros in the two languages.

(Completely off the subject), SML does have CL packages whipped.
-- 
Doug Quale
quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu