On Nov 12, 2008, at 14:52, David wrote: > That's why I put my "syntax" in quotes. From my chair having almost no > syntax is a non-issue. I'd trade in syntax smallness for readability > any time.
Taste and personal preference aside, one can ask the question what you get and what you lose by choosing "readability" or "regular syntax". A feature that you get with Lisp's minimal syntax, and which is often overlooked or underestimated, is simple yet powerful metaprogramming through macros. Compare Lisp to any other metaprogramming language (C++ templates, Template Haskell, MetaOCaml, ...) and you will quickly notice that Lisp macros are simplicity itself. > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't implying that having IDEs is the > only factor in making it in the real world. I'm just saying that not > having them doesn't improve the odds. IDEs are very much a matter of personal preference. Having one is not enough to make an impact, what you need is support by many different IDEs. I don't know any language that had this from the start, so I doubt it ever made a difference to language acceptance. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
