Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!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: Ah, the macho response!
Message-ID: <601@smds.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jun 91 13:47:31 GMT
References: <2925.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 22

In article <2925.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, dwp@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.

To an intellectual populist like myself, something that is inaccessible
to large numbers of people for insufficient reason is WRONG.
 
> Once you get into the groove its not that big of a deal.

Once you've banged your head enough, you become numb.  But that doesn't
mean the damage stops.  Lisp syntax just doesn't make good use of the
way human brains and visual systems work.  Practice can compensate,
but not totally.  It means you spend conscious energy to do what you
can do unconsciously with other languages.

--Steve