🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2714@amix.commodore.com> skrenta@amix.commodore.com (Rich Skrenta) writes:

   But given equal proficiency, could a
   programmer debug a similar algorithm implemented in Algol or Forth faster?
   How about C vs. Assembly?  Scheme vs. teco?

As much as it may surprise you, Scheme is a descendent of Algol. And
as much as it may suprise you, the best environment for
coding/debugging in any language I have ever seen was for
Scheme/Common Lisp (the TI Explorer, though scheme is not publically
available).

   It's possible that the Magical Power of Lisp-like-languages outweighs the
   disadvantages of folding every syntactic construct onto the pattern f(a b c).
   I'm suspicious, though.  The Scheme crowds' arguments sound an awful lot
   like all of the excuses I heard for using Forth.

Your pattern is wrong - it should be (f a b c). But you have missed a
lot: Scheme syntax is simple (<function/command> argument ...), but
that is only one small feature of the language. You can write "the
magical power of lisp" into a C style language if you choose, or you
can write a more restrictive version of "lisp" which is basically
equivalent to C but uses prefix notation. So what - its only syntax.

No, I'm not a Scheme zealot, I just don't like to see a language
trashed because of misunderstanding or dislike of a single feature.

John
gateley@rice.edu
--
"I've thought the thoughts of little children and the thoughts of men
 I've thought the thoughts of stupid people who have never been
 so much in love as they should be and got confused too easily
 to fall in love again." The Residents and Renaldo and the Loaf