Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!odi!valens!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Code as data (replies to comments).
Message-ID: <383@odi.ODI.COM>
Date: 12 Jun 89 23:05:41 GMT
References: <1057@syma.sussex.ac.uk> <1350021@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Sender: news@odi.com
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Lines: 51
In-reply-to: sfk@otter.hpl.hp.com's message of 11 Jun 89 14:21:52 GMT

In article <1350021@otter.hpl.hp.com> sfk@otter.hpl.hp.com (Stephen Knight) writes:

   > It's a very important benefit of Lisp that there is no distinction
   > between "built-in operators" and "user-defined functions". 

   Of course.  But this does not imply prefix syntax (cf. Prolog for counter
   example.)  

It implies uniform syntax, which conventional arithmetic notation does not
have.

	      The point I was trying to make was that Lisp has made unsatisfying
   compromises, and I gave an arithmetic expression as an example.  

Which I do not find to be a compromise worth mentioning.

								    Other
   languages do not make this compromise and do not seem to suffer any penalty.

Other suffer being inextensible.  I have already explained this; I won't
go into it again.

   At the expense of inflexible 

Inflexible?  It is as flexible as can be.

				and rather odd-looking expressions.  Again, I was
   trying to establish the notion that a compromise has taken place.  

It's only odd-looking to you.  The only "compromise" is that many
people are not accustomed to it, as I have said over and over again.
Since we appear to be agreeing, I won't send any further postings on
the topic of Lisp syntax.

								      I would 
   certainly agree that the over-use of infix syntax is poor style.

				      Haven't you noticed people scoffing
   at Lisp purely because of its syntax?  

Adult, educated people?  Not in the last ten years, no.  But I have
seen people put off by it, as we both agree.

Yes, you can propose a whole new language that you have just invented,
but it will be very hard to gain a following for any new language.  If
you want to get people involved, the existing Lisp has many advantages
over a newly synthesized language: many people know it, textbooks
exist, implementations exist, there's an ANSI standard committee, and
so on.  New languages can be interesting research work, but from a
practical point of view, it's very, very hard to make them fly.  Even
if they are as logical and elegant as Esperanto.