Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: scheme [Re: What does an anti-perl look like]
Message-ID: <4601@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 19:43:39 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 78

In article  <2925.UUL1.3#5129@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.

No, WRONG.  If it is uncomfortable for people, then it is by
definition the wrong syntax to have them program in.

Definition: A "wrong syntax" is any syntax that is uncomfortable for
the people using it.

It is possible that people could become comfortable with a syntax that
they were once uncomfortable with.  In this case it would cease being
a "wrong syntax" for that individual.  However, in order to make such
an exercise worthwhile you first have to demonstrate that there would
be some great advantage to the new syntax.  There is no great
advantage to lisp syntax.

It is possible (but not certain, contrary to what some lispers would
claim) that if everyone had grown up with lisp-like syntax in math
classes that they would all be just as happy with it as they are with
infix syntax.  Who cares?  The fact is that they didn't grow up with
that sort of syntax, they aren't happy with it, and they shouldn't
have to learn a completely different syntax just because a small
influential community of programmers learned that syntax back in the
days of dinosaurs and IBM 360's when parsing was poorly understood.

It has become institutionalized by now.  People who use that syntax on
a regular basis usually had no trouble with it (or they wouldn't be
using it now), and they assume that everyone is just like them, and
should have not trouble with it either.  And if anyone _does_ have
trouble with it, then the person must be an uneducated, reactionary
slob who uses phrases like "me'n'my'buddies donna like it".

Wake up.  People are different.  They have different tastes, different
tolerance for change, and different backgrounds.  And when you have
something that a huge majority agree on (like infix notation) then you
should exploit this miracle, not spurn it.  And for heaven's sake,
don't try to undermine it (which is just what the lisp community has
been doing).

]"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.

Does anyone have any non-anecdotal, non-fictional data to back up the
claim that the syntax of lisp is _not_ a hindrance to learning it?
(sheesh. If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.)  When the
only evidence available is anecdotal, then that is what you have to
use to form an opinion.  My experience involves a non-scientific
sample of perhaps 10 to 20 individuals who learned lisp and didn't
like it.  When asked why they didn't like it, the syntax is _always_
mentioned as a negative feature.  The sample size is small, but the
variance is impressively low.

By the way, I personally don't have any problem with lisp syntax.  I
program in lisp quite a bit and never have minded the syntax (when
using an editor that bounces parens).

]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.

No, I've argued for making syntax comfortable for people in general,
people who have grown up with modern mathematical notations and
learned to program in C or Pascal or BASIC.  Beginning programmers
aren't the biggest problem, I expect that it is established
programmers who have the most difficulty with radically different
syntax.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman