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: <4622@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 04:52:12 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 19

In article  <GATELEY.91Jun26150215@gefion.rice.edu> John Gateley writes:
]
]... Many people don't like
]Lisp/Scheme true, but to blame it all or even majorly on the syntax is
]unfair. There are many features which require a different mindset:
]recursion instead of loops, first class functions, dynamic typing,
]macros...

Actually, you _can_ write loops in lisp, and you can ignore
first-class functions and macros if you don't like them.  When these
things are mentioned as negative aspects of lisp, they are actually
negative reactions to the way they were taught lisp, or negative
reactions to advanced programming techniques.  Neither should be taken
as a criticism of lisp.  The lack of static type checking might be
considered a real criticism, but the rest are not.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman