Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Industrial Poet)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: scheme [Re: What does an anti-perl look like]
Message-ID: <ZTL042w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 28 Jun 91 18:42:46 GMT
References: <4671@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 72

gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
> In article  <2Xc8415w164w@mantis.co.uk> Giving C News a *HUG* writes:
> ]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.

That's your opinion.  A lot of people see great advantages in the syntactic
flexibility and simplicity of Lisp.

> ]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.

Sorry?  What "special syntax" are you referring to here with your examples? 
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by a "special" syntax as
opposed to the standard one.

>                             You have to specify what operators take
> more than the normal number of parameters.

You're applying a concept which doesn't fit the language.  Lisp functions
like + and cond don't have a "normal number of parameters".  (+ 2 3 5) isn't
a special version of + with an abnormal number of parameters; it's the same +
which you find in (+ 2 3).

>                                          And for non-associative
> operations you have to specify what multiple parameters mean.

You have to specify what the parameters mean for other sorts of syntax as
well.

> ]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.

Untrue.  I believe that Lisp syntax does cause problems, I just don't believe
that Lisp syntax is a hindrance to learning the language -- at least, not to
those who are actually prepared to try and learn the language.

>                             I can even rephrase your stand as a
> positive assertion: "lisp syntax is just as good as algol-like
> syntax".

That isn't what I'm saying at all.  You haven't re-phrased my stand, you have
re-defined it.

My opinion is: (not (believe (syntax-hinders-learning Lisp))).

If it were (believe (not (syntax-hinders-learning Lisp))) then you could
indeed re-phrase it as a positive assertion.  But as it stands I am not
making an assertion; I am simply doubting an assertion you have made.

> ]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.

Clearly you hold it fairly strongly, or you wouldn't go on about it so much.


mathew