🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4582@optima.cs.arizona.edu>,
	gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:

+In article  <GATELEY.91Jun25134644@gefion.rice.edu> John Gateley writes:
+]
+]I mean that syntax is relatively unimportant.

+How can you say that syntax is unimportant when such a huge percentage
+of people who try lisp or scheme are turned off by the syntax?  It is
+certainly important to them.  It is a hindrance to the goal of getting
+more people to use the language, and it is a distraction for many
+people trying to use the language.  Just because it isn't a problem
+for _you_ doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

And just because it is a problem for the so called masses means merely
that is it DIFFERENT from what they are used to.  Not wrong.  DIFFERENT.

+Any language feature that is unpalatable to large numbers of people is
+a misfeature.  And calling it "relatively unimportant" isn't going to
+make it any less important to the people who are bothered by it.  If
+you don't think a lot of people are seriously bothered by lisp syntax
+then you are mistaken.

"Tons of people don't like lisp syntax" ... Does ANYONE have any
non-anecdotal, non-fictional data to back this up?  Yeah, me'n'my'buddies
donna like it.  Wow, am I ever impressed.

No, I don't particular care for LISP syntax because it is not what I use
most of the time.  Once you get into the groove its not that big of a deal.

All you've really argued for is making all programming language syntax
sufficiently similar that some first year programming weenie can switch
to it with no hassles.

If you want something really weird try PostScript or Forth.

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei,uunet}!willett!dwp