Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: scheme [Re: What does an anti-perl look like]
Message-ID: <2878.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 14 Jun 91 20:45:07 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 20

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