Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!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: <4671@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 28 Jun 91 08:42:15 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 69

In article  <2Xc8415w164w@mantis.co.uk> Giving C News a *HUG* writes:
]gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]> 
]> No, WRONG.  If it is uncomfortable for people, then it is by
]> definition the wrong syntax to have them program in.
]
]Oh?  Presumably because object-oriented programming is uncomfortable and
]confusing for many people, it is also by definition the wrong way to have
]them write programs?

Two answers: (1) there is presumably some other advantage to oriented
programming that gives incentive to go through the discomfort -- the
same does not apply to lisp syntax.  (2) if your object oriented
syntax is all that uncomfortable for large numbers of people then,
yes, it is probably wrong.  Find a better one.

]>                                             There is no great
]> advantage to lisp syntax.
]
]1. It's simple.  You can summarize all the syntax you need to know on the
]   back of a postcard.

Not true.  You have to specify the special syntax of defun, let,
protect-unwind, do (which is worse than anything I have ever seen in
an algol-like language), etc.  You have to specify what operators take
more than the normal number of parameters.  And for non-associative
operations you have to specify what multiple parameters mean.  Lisp
syntax is _not_ trivial.

]2. It's easy to implement.

That isn't an advantage for the person using the syntax.

]3. It's flexible, in the way that (say) infix isn't.  Most of the basic
]   operations (+, *, and so on) naturally extend to any number of arguments.

A very minor advantage, and probably the only real one.

]4. You don't have to worry about any precedence rules whatsoever.

The same is true of infix syntax.  If you don't know the precedence
you can always use parens (and the result is no worse than lisp).  The
difference is that with infix syntax you have the choice.

]> 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?
]
]You're the one making the positive assertion, that Lisp's syntax is a
]hindrance to learning it.  You're the one who has to provide the evidence.

The fact is that you seem to believe that lisp syntax does not cause
problems.  This is a real opinion.  It is different from having no
opinion on the matter, and is just as subject to the need for evidence
as is the opposite opinion.  I can even rephrase your stand as a
positive assertion: "lisp syntax is just as good as algol-like
syntax".  There, now you have to give evidence and I don't.

]>                                                              When the
]> only evidence available is anecdotal, then that is what you have to
]> use to form an opinion.

]When the only evidence is anecdotal, I would advise you not to form such a
]strongly-held opinion.

You have no idea how strongly I hold this opinion.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman