Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:3671 comp.lang.scheme:1676
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!news
From: cliffc@libya.rice.edu (Cliff Click)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Virtues of ML syntax
Message-ID: <1990Sep18.174851.4175@rice.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 90 17:48:51 GMT
References: <3408@skye.ed.ac.uk> <15089@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <3428@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 20

For all those folks involved in the Lisp syntax is good/bad wars...

I've done some Scheme programming, darn little ML programming and scads
of C/Fortran/Pascal/etc programming.  I find ML syntax to be incredibly 
unreadable, while Scheme & C syntax isn't that bad.  Is this a function of:

1) Not enough experience with ML,

2) the difficultly of having a type system in a function language,

3) lousy design of ML syntax or

4) none of the above?


Gratefully awaiting your enlightened responses,
Cliff Click
-- 
Cliff Click                
cliffc@owlnet.rice.edu