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$)
From: "Michael T. Richter" <mtr@ottawa.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:15:03 -0400 (EDT)
Followup-To: comp.lang.lisp
Organization: Half-Baked Software
References: <57D01C66CBEFE28E.0140FBE2F42B8951.48F3FDB0A810D9E0@lp.airnews.net> <m3zoo7w69a.fsf@cadet.dsl.speakeasy.net> <huvjls0t6hfio3htr0r1ee3bk57b0th1dr@4ax.com> <c29g0pxbubg.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <kpamlscdjl89ihfhsdk3d4rinoa1hji78j@4ax.com> <bruce-3485B7.01374830062000@news.akl.ihug.co.nz> <m2u2ebzfyf.fsf@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk> <58rolsg17q7154fdf6dq5l038rbbnl10jt@4ax.com> <3171354053463029@naggum.no> <j7175.9050$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$ZI2.229846@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com> <m2g0pqal5d.fsf@euler.axel.nom> <oLi85.18114$ZI2.543403@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com> <39628640@news.sentex.net>
Reply-To: "Michael T. Richter" <mtr@ottawa.com>
Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.lisp:54287 comp.lang.dylan:12396

"Hartmann Schaffer" <hs@inferno.nirvananet> wrote in message
39628640@news.sentex.net">news:39628640@news.sentex.net...
>>> lisp only looks longwinded and confusing on the surface.

>> If something looks confusing, it likely is.

> everything looks confusing to the uninitiated.  mathematical notation
> is an excellent example, but after having learned a little bit about
> it, most people prefer it over the alternatives.  imo the same applies
> to lisp

But you're *DEALING* with someone who learned a bit about it.  Indeed you're
dealing with someone who learned a bit about Lisp (and work-alikes) before
he learned about C.  And rejected Lisp.  Several times.  I've attempted to
add Lisp and its work-alikes to my tool belt several times.  Each time I
wind up with a nearly perl-like tendency toward having code I've written
become unreadable six weeks later.

>> If unreadability is supposed to be an advantage, I guess I'm all for it.

> see above

See above.

I think one of the most annoying traits of Lispers is that you all seem to
think that people who don't like Lisp are merely ignorant of all of its
advantages.  I'm not.  I know what kinds of powerful things Lisp provides.
I know how useful those things are.  But all this utility comes at a cost:
the language is horrid to read and tends to turn into write-only code with
little effort -- for me, at any rate.  No amount of your wildly flapping
your arms and telling me that I'll "get it" with only a bit of effort will
change the fact that after SEVERAL YEARS of on-again-off-again attempts to
learn the language, I *STILL* despise it as an unreadable mess.

Is that clear?

References: