Message from discussion Are macros really a neccessity, or a coverup of language deficiencies?
From: Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Are macros really a neccessity, or a coverup of language deficiencies?
References: <390371F0.36455F4E@makif.omer.k12.il> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3907660B.CCA3ECD2@yahoo.com> <1e9pulo.1ueryh2128131kNemail@example.com> <3907FD4A.D138F88D@yahoo.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3908D64D.C42DCE6E@yahoo.com> <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: typhoon1.san.rr.com 956906549 220.127.116.11 (Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:22:29 PDT)
Organization: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:22:29 PDT
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Peaker <GNUPea...@yahoo.com>
> | I find it a lot more readable, too, don't you?
> sorry, no. I find the object model extremely constraining, just
> like infix syntax is simple and compact for severely constrained
> contexts and circumstances.
Personally, I don't find that infix notation has much
merit, except for the fact that "that's what everyone is
used to". Really, I'd rather write (+ 3 4 5 6) than
(3 + 4 + 5 + 6) any day, and come now: is (+ 3 4) any more
syntactically unwieldly than (3 + 4)? Not that I can tell.
I suppose, perhaps, you're referring to all the very simple
expressions in other languages where the parentheses aren't
necessary? But then you and I both know that lisp programmers
stop seeing parens after a while...
I'm reminded of a study which showed that command line
environments were harder to learn but had higher payoff
in productivity in the end. I wouldn't really characterize
Lisp as being hard to learn at all, but I would still
characterize it somewhat like that: any initial investement
time is certainly paid off for by productivity in the end.