Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!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: Visuals of reading
Message-ID: <604@smds.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jun 91 20:15:25 GMT
References: <ROCKWELL.91Jun15015154@socrates.umd.edu> <2714@amix.commodore.com> <GATELEY.91Jun26193626@gefion.rice.edu>
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 17

In article <GATELEY.91Jun26193626@gefion.rice.edu>, gateley@rice.edu (John Gateley) writes:
> 
> For me (but of course I am one of those strange Scheme people :^), the
> problem is exactly the same but in the other direction. When I look at
> languages with more conventional syntax, I have to go through the same
> contortions you do. I drag the manual out etc. ...
 
> Consider reading - do you spell out the
> words letter by letter and then parse them into a single word? Or do
> you get the "gestalt" all at once? 

Words--gestalt.  Sentences--infix notation (well, mostly) plus special
beginning and end markers!  Paragraphs, sections, chapters--visual!  Hah!  
But English isn't that different from Lisp.  On the other hand, English
is constructed for reading straight through rather than hacking on.

--Steve