Thread View: comp.lang.misc
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Doug Philips
Wed, 26 Jun 1991 16:45
Re: scheme [Re: What does an anti-perl look like]
Author: Doug Philips
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 16:45
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 16:45
39 lines
2160 bytes
2160 bytes
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
Re: scheme [Re: What does an anti-perl look like]
Author: Stephen E. Witham
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 13:47
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 13:47
22 lines
1460 bytes
1460 bytes
In article <2925.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) writes: > In article <4582@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, > gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: > +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? > 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. To an intellectual populist like myself, something that is inaccessible to large numbers of people for insufficient reason is WRONG. > Once you get into the groove its not that big of a deal. Once you've banged your head enough, you become numb. But that doesn't mean the damage stops. Lisp syntax just doesn't make good use of the way human brains and visual systems work. Practice can compensate, but not totally. It means you spend conscious energy to do what you can do unconsciously with other languages. --Steve
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