Re: lightweight languages

[Dorai Sitaram <address@hidden>]

[Dan Weinreb]
> 
> "Easy to use" is unfortunately so malleable and subjective a criterion
> as to be very difficult to apply fairly.  And I'm afraid I think the
> same of "easy to learn".  I found Perl hard to learn because it seemed
> to have a lot of exceptions to rules, even for simple things.  I found
> Scheme hard to learn because all that continuation-passing stuff can
> be really hard to think about (the first argument should be a function
> whose first argument is a function whose first argument is a function
> that...), and Scheme catch (call/cc) is also rather challenging, in
> my opinion.  Let's not confuse "it's good/virtuous/useful for you
> to learn it" with "it's easy for you to learn it".

I'm frankly puzzled about why are you thinking about
continuation-passing stuff if it is hard going?  I
mean, what is the problem or requirement compelling you
to do it, and what is the "easy" alternative that
you would have otherwise used that is putatively not
available because the language is Scheme?

Scheme (and not just Scheme, of course) lets you do CPS
perspicuously.  That does not mean you have to do it,
nor that those languages that simply don't let you do
it are therefore to easy to use.  I don't do CPS a lot
of the time.  I don't use call/cc a lot of the time
either.  But I have recourse to them if I need
them.

Your point about the subjectiveness of ease of
learning is valid enough.  But your example is
impertinent. 

--d