Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!transfer!lectroid!jjmhome!smds!sw From: sw@smds.UUCP (Stephen E. Witham) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: scheme [Re: What does an anti-perl look like] Summary: "It's only syntax?" Message-ID: <583@smds.UUCP> Date: 24 Jun 91 13:49:22 GMT References: <2714@amix.commodore.com> Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA Lines: 30 In article , gateley@rice.edu (John Gateley) writes: > ...You can write "the > magical power of lisp" into a C style language if you choose, or you > can write a more restrictive version of "lisp" which is basically > equivalent to C but uses prefix notation. So what - its only syntax. "It's only syntax?" (When you say "more restrictive," you imply more than syntax, but...) Do you mean that syntax is unimportant, or do you mean that changing the syntax of Scheme would be easy, or what? If you say syntax is unimportant, then you're pretty much ignoring the main issue here. Scheme with a different syntax is a nice idea, but it would be a different language, as far as this discussion goes. If you say changing Scheme to look like C would be easy, that's only half true. I've seen a description of an Algolish, infix-notation front end for Lisp, and it looked great, and I'm sure that at a certain level, it's a trivial thing to do, but there are problems, like, how do you define new operators, and how do you define macros, how do you write programs that write programs, and how do you put lambda expressions in the middle of expressions. All of these add little chunks of complexity, and little chunks of complexity count. > No, I'm not a Scheme zealot, I just don't like to see a language > trashed because of misunderstanding or dislike of a single feature. If a single--integral--feature makes the whole language confusing, then it's fair to point that out. --Steve