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: <4623@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 04:58:22 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 17

In article  <1991Jun26.223026.13792@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Michael Coffin writes:
]There's at least one advantage to the lisp syntax, and that advantage
]is important to lispers, although others may not find it important.
]Lisp programs have a simple, logical representation as data within
]lisp: a program is a list of lists, i.e., a tree.

I'll agree that that would be a huge advantage if it were only
possible with lisp syntax.  But in prolog you can do anything that you
can do with lisp syntax, and prolog uses mostly conventional
function-call and operator syntax.

And I understand (from reading, not first-hand experience) that there
are some languages that have even improved on prolog in this area.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman