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$)
From: Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:45:02 -0400 (EDT)
References: <57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2F42B8951.48F3FDB0A810D9E0@lp.airnews.net> <m3zoo7w69a.fsf@cadet.dsl.speakeasy.net> <huvjls0t6hfio3htr0r1ee3bk57b0th1dr@4ax.com> <c29g0pxbubg.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <kpamlscdjl89ihfhsdk3d4rinoa1hji78j@4ax.com> <bruce-3485B7.01374830062000@news.akl.ihug.co.nz> <m2u2ebzfyf.fsf@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk> <58rolsg17q7154fdf6dq5l038rbbnl10jt@4ax.com> <3171354053463029@naggum.no> <j7175.9050$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> <m2og4hajrm.fsf@euler.axel.nom> <Goq75.11081$ZI2.229846@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>
Sender: simon@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk
Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.lisp:54139 comp.lang.dylan:12330

"Michael T. Richter" <mtr@ottawa.com> writes:

> "Johan Kullstam" <kullstam@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
> m2og4hajrm.fsf@euler.axel.nom">news:m2og4hajrm.fsf@euler.axel.nom...
> >> Syntax is trivial.  Get over it.
> 
> > it's not.  i like the lisp syntax because of its clean look.
> 
> That's the first time I've seen someone describe a profusion of parentheses
> as "clean".

Well, then, look again. LISP syntax results from the fact that LISP as
printed is a very nearly direct representation of the structures that
are created in the machine as it is read. 

The representation of LISP structures which you conventionally edit in
a file has a uniquely direct and simple mapping onto the
representation which is held in core - a representation much more
direct, much more consistent and much more perspicuous than in any
other high-level language in common use. Furthermore, these structures
which you edit can be interpreted directly, and one of the great
benefits of Common LISP over earlier LISPs is it strives very hard to
ensure that the semantics of code when it is compiled are identical to
the semantics of the same code when interpreted.

It's this cleanness which makes it so much easier to 'think yourself
into the machine' in LISP than in other high-level languages.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
	;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
	;; LISP as to make no difference.

Follow-Ups: