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$)
From: Johan Kullstam <kullstam@ne.mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: none
References: <57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2F42B8951.48F3FDB0A810D9E0@lp.airnews.net> <m3zoo7w69a.fsf@cadet.dsl.speakeasy.net> <huvjls0t6hfio3htr0r1ee3bk57b0th1dr@4ax.com> <c29g0pxbubg.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <kpamlscdjl89ihfhsdk3d4rinoa1hji78j@4ax.com> <bruce-3485B7.01374830062000@news.akl.ihug.co.nz> <m2u2ebzfyf.fsf@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk> <58rolsg17q7154fdf6dq5l038rbbnl10jt@4ax.com> <3171354053463029@naggum.no> <j7175.9050$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: jk@euler.axel.nom
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) Emacs/20.7
Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.lisp:54199 comp.lang.dylan:12355

"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".

lisp only looks longwinded and confusing on the surface.

gareth mccaughan had an excellent post about this

http://x71.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=578557750&CONTEXT=962663586.1539506178&hitnum=0

the parens take up very little room and don't get in your way.  notice
how much more descriptive words lisp allows compared to the required
boilerplate of C/C++.  with-open-file only looks long compared to
fopen, but the former does *so much more*.

in general, i find that lisp programs are *much* shorter and more
concise than in other languages.  this is least apparent with short
program stumps like in the above post.  the gap is very wide once you
program anything of even modest size.

i admit that the boilerplate mishmash of parens, braces and semicolons
can help a human find their way, e.g., i think C's for (;;){} is
easier than lisp's (do ()()()).  however, C's semi-random assortment
of statement seperators comes at a very high cost.  look how feeble
C's macros are compared to lisp.  do not be penny wise and pound
foolish.

imho the simple syntax of lisp is a *huge* advantage for lisp.

-- 
J o h a n  K u l l s t a m
[kullstam@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!

Follow-Ups: