[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
In article <395D43D1.5B32@synquiry.com>, Jon S Anthony
<jsa@synquiry.com> wrote:
> The oddest thing about this is that "you" ended up "depriving" _both_.
> A C/C++ hack is _never_ going to go with "pascal-ish" syntax. Never.
> And the Lisp folks won't go for it because, frankly, it is
> fundamentally broken with respect to macros.
And the Pascal/Modula-2/Ada guys like me say "what the heck are those ()
doing around all the conditions?". And absolutely no one is pleased.
I don't know what to do about this. My ideal Dylan would lose the ()
and use then/do type keywords instead.
But when it comes down to it I really don't care *what* syntax is used
as long as its consistent. And infix. I've written significant
programs in at least:
infix:
- (Object) Pascal
- dylan
- C/C++
- java
- perl
not infix:
- assembler
- postscript // bracketless postfix
- logo // bracketles prefix
- scheme // bracketed prefix
I can use anything. I *definitely* prefer an infix syntax. I slightly
prefer Pascal-ish syntax, but *all* the most common languages today --
C++, Java and Perl (and C#) -- use essentially the same syntax. A
broken one, IMHO, but one familiar to a great many people. And one that
now has a number of different semantics.
-- Bruce
References: