🚀 go-pugleaf

gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
> In article  <2925.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Doug Philips writes:
> ]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.
> 
> No, WRONG.  If it is uncomfortable for people, then it is by
> definition the wrong syntax to have them program in.

Oh?  Presumably because object-oriented programming is uncomfortable and
confusing for many people, it is also by definition the wrong way to have
them write programs?

>                                             There is no great
> advantage to lisp syntax.

1. It's simple.  You can summarize all the syntax you need to know on the
   back of a postcard.

2. It's easy to implement.

3. It's flexible, in the way that (say) infix isn't.  Most of the basic
   operations (+, *, and so on) naturally extend to any number of arguments.

4. You don't have to worry about any precedence rules whatsoever.

I'm sure other people can come up with lots of advantages I've forgotten.

> It is possible (but not certain, contrary to what some lispers would
> claim) that if everyone had grown up with lisp-like syntax in math
> classes that they would all be just as happy with it as they are with
> infix syntax.  Who cares?  The fact is that they didn't grow up with
> that sort of syntax, they aren't happy with it, and they shouldn't
> have to learn a completely different syntax [...]

Ah!  You're arguing that people should be taught Lisp or RPN in schools?  I
agree wholeheartedly.  At school I devised a method of using my Casio
calculator in an RPN-like way, because I found it more straightforward.  When
I later found out about RPN and got an HP, I thought "Why didn't they teach
me this, or at least mention it, when we started using calculators?"

> ]"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.
> 
> Does anyone have any non-anecdotal, non-fictional data to back up the
> claim that the syntax of lisp is _not_ a hindrance to learning it?

You're the one making the positive assertion, that Lisp's syntax is a
hindrance to learning it.  You're the one who has to provide the evidence.

>                                                              When the
> only evidence available is anecdotal, then that is what you have to
> use to form an opinion.

When the only evidence is anecdotal, I would advise you not to form such a
strongly-held opinion.


mathew