🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GATELEY.91Jun22001123@gefion.rice.edu>, gateley@rice.edu (John Gateley) writes:
> ...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.

"It's only syntax?"  (When you say "more restrictive," you imply more than
syntax, but...)  Do you mean that syntax is unimportant, or do you
mean that changing the syntax of Scheme would be easy, or what?

If you say syntax is unimportant, then you're pretty much ignoring 
the main issue here.  Scheme with a different syntax is a nice idea,
but it would be a different language, as far as this discussion goes.

If you say changing Scheme to look like C would be easy, that's only
half true.  I've seen a description of an Algolish, infix-notation front 
end for Lisp, and it looked great, and I'm sure that at a certain level,
it's a trivial thing to do, but there are problems, like, how do you 
define new operators, and how do you define macros, how do you write
programs that write programs, and how do you put lambda expressions in
the middle of expressions.  All of these add little chunks of 
complexity, and little chunks of complexity count.

> 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.

If a single--integral--feature makes the whole language confusing, then 
it's fair to point that out.

--Steve