Re: scheme [Re: What does an anti-perl look like]

Thread View: comp.lang.misc

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Doug Philips Fri, 14 Jun 1991 20:45

#4134

Author: Doug Philips
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 20:45

20 lines
1258 bytes

In article <505@data.UUCP>,
	kend@data.UUCP (Ken Dickey) writes:

+>byron@donald.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:

+>> 3) I want the syntax of the language to be elegant. This sounds like a tall
+>> order, but what I'm doing is ruling out languages like Scheme; I just cannot
+>> deal with the Lots of Irrelevant and Stupid Parentheses.

+You probably don't use C's ugly curly braces, parenthesis, or square
+brackets (why so many types of parenthesis?).  Aside from being
+elegant--which it is--, Scheme's syntax is trivial.  I *never* have to
+look at a language manual to use Scheme.  I *always* have to look at
+manuals for non-lisp-family languages.  Syntax should be trivial!

And then there are Forth and PostScript with even less syntax!

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

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads