2009/11/11 Antoni Grzymala <antoni_AT_chopin.edu.pl>:
> Looks like you didn't give more than half a minute's time, to see what
> Lisp's syntax (or rather the lack of it) is actually about. Your hopes
> are vain.
It doesn't take long to judge clarity. Perhaps experience is a
critical factor but to me it seems a lot easier to quickly glance over
well written C code and be able to tell what's going on than a chunk
of Lisp.
2009/11/11 markus schnalke <meillo_AT_marmaro.de>:
> I assume now even more, you never came much in contact with Lisp.
> Laughing on the parens is what many people do -- ones who never
> recognized the conceptual elegance of the Lisp syntax.
You're right, I don't see the elegance of Lisp. Perhaps if you can
explain the merits that outweigh the cumbersome syntax you might stand
a better chance of convincing me otherwise.
> I am one of the C folks too, but I learned about Lisp. Its syntax is
> based on such a simple concept, that it can not be anything else than
> clean.
As far as I can tell, Lisp's primary features are that everything is a
list and that logic/arithmetic is specified in polish notation. TCL
has a similar concept with lists but in my mind has a nicer syntax.
> Please, first understand the concepts of the Lisp syntax and ignore
> your habits, then tell again there is no cleaner syntax than C's.
To be fair I never said "there is no cleaner syntax than C", what I
said was "It's the cleanest and most logical syntax I've come across
so far.", and I stand by that.
If there's anything special about the Lisp syntax that makes it
elegant, it's not immediately obvious to me so you're going to have to
point it out.
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 02:49:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 03:00:03 UTC