Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)

To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
From: "Scott McKay" <swm@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: Road Runner
References: <57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2F42B8951.48F3FDB0A810D9E0@lp.airnews.net> <m3zoo7w69a.fsf@cadet.dsl.speakeasy.net> <huvjls0t6hfio3htr0r1ee3bk57b0th1dr@4ax.com> <c29g0pxbubg.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <kpamlscdjl89ihfhsdk3d4rinoa1hji78j@4ax.com> <bruce-3485B7.01374830062000@news.akl.ihug.co.nz> <m2u2ebzfyf.fsf@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk> <58rolsg17q7154fdf6dq5l038rbbnl10jt@4ax.com> <3171354053463029@naggum.no> <j7175.9050$Zr5.877270@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> <3171366678290484@naggum.no> <395C9ACA.5272174C@thecia.net> <kib75.251582$MB.4396963@news6.giganews.com> <fto75.10724$Zr5.951646@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> <3171460328438767@naggum.net>
Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.lisp:54125 comp.lang.dylan:12318


Erik Naggum wrote in message <3171460328438767@naggum.net>...
>* "Scott McKay" <swm@mediaone.net>
>| Hey, look, if the only thing that Lispers care about is having
>| Lisp syntax, then they are as closed-minded as the C and Java
>| communities.  Syntax is trivial.  Get over it.
>
>  Wow, so much _passion_ against somebody caring about something!  But
>  why reduce somebody else's concerns to "only thing that they care
>  about"?  How rewarding can it be to beat those strawman arguments?


Perhaps you missed the "if" in that sentence?

>  You may dislike that some people care about syntax and even think
>  they are idiots for it, but at least have the honesty and decency to
>  judge them for what they think, not for some moronic attitude _you_
>  attribute to them out of malice, OK?
>
>  Syntax _is_ important to some people.  So, too, is spelling and
>  grammar in natural languages.  Some _always_ "disagree" with this,
>  however and it is usually coupled with a hostile "get over it" to
>  whoever points out a mistake.  One could psychologize endlessly over
>  the causes of such intolerant hostility.
>
>  Syntax evidently forms the ways our languages develop and evolve, if
>  the history of programming languages is at all useful to consider,
>  which would imply that syntax itself in no small part shapes the way
>  we _think_ in our languages, especially when so much of programming
>  is all about making our own thoughts expressible _in_ a language, by
>  extending it in various ways.  I therefore find it a sign of general
>  lack of insight into languages and human use of them to make such an
>  unfounded and overly broad claim as "syntax is trivial", especially
>  after having complained about Lisp's syntax.  What was that "get
>  over it"?  It surely does not apply _only_ to others, does it?


If you took the time to actually learn something about modern
linguistic theory, you would see that people like Chomsky have
tried to show that surface syntax is a property derived from
much deeper underlying rules.  Pinker's books are an excellent
introduction to this.  I find it a sign of general lack of insight that
people think that syntax in most languages is the tough thing,
because it isn't.

>  On the other hand, my chief gripe with fixed-grammer syntaxes is
>  that they enforce this artificial separation between the language
>  and any expression in the language, but some people never get past
>  the level where they only "use" a language. as opposed to be able to
>  _live_ with the language.  [A weak reference to Richard Gabriel's
>  "Patterns of Software" and _inhabitable_ software.]
>
>  Finally, a twist on the old "beware of programmers with screwdrivers":
>  Beware of programming language designers who show disdain for syntax.


I have seen evidence of "disdain for syntax".  Well, except from
you, who evidently could not care less for the genuine effort
spent making Dylan's infix syntax reasonable.

Follow-Ups: