Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!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: <4732@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 30 Jun 91 21:44:26 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 78

In article  <ZTL042w164w@mantis.co.uk> Industrial Poet writes:
]gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]> 
]> 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.

A lot of people don't.

]> ]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.

The do loop is part of the standard sytax.  It is a very complex
structure, and cannot be described on a postcard even by itself, even
along with the rest of the syntax.  The syntax of lisp special forms
is just as complicated as control structures in any other language.
The only difference is that in lisp these control structures are
forced to look like function calls (which makes them harder to
recognize).  The _only_ think in lisp syntax that can be truly be
called "simpler" than traditional syntax is the lack of infix
operations.

]
]>                             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).

First, cond isn't a function it is a special form (called a control
structure in other languages).  People often make such mistakes in
Lisp because of the "simplifying" homogeneous syntax.  (In fact when I
taught lisp, I found one of the most confusing things to my students
was trying to distinguish between functions and special forms.)
Second, (+ 2 3 5) certainly _is_ a special version of + with an
abnormal number of parameters.  + is taken from mathematics where it
almost always has just two arguments.

]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.

Sorry, I had you confused with the person who wrote the original
article.  He certainly _did_ make positive assertions, therefor your
claim that I was the only one who needed to provide evidence is wrong.

]> 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.

Shows what you know.  I would go on about anything if I was prodded
right (I expect many of the regular readers of this group can vouch
for that :-).  My prodding in this case came from an article where
someone said the issue of syntax isn't important.  I find this
attitude to be particularly arrogant.  Just because it isn't a problem
for _you_ doesn't mean it isn't a problem.  And my observations
indicate that it _is_ a problem for a lot of people.

It so happens that I _don't_ hold this opinion very strongly.  I could
be easily swayed by an experimental study on the matter (even though I
am not under the illusion that such studies are always sound).
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman