On Mar 6, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Ken Wesson wrote: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: >> Rather than enumerate the places where sexprs are sub-optimal, it would save >> a *lot* of time to simply point out that: >> >> (a) Every general-purpose programming language notation is a poor substitute >> for the "native" notation of every domain > > Ah, but what, pray tell, *is* "the native notation" of a domain?
Whatever the specialists in that domain say it is. > And > why are you so sure it's almost never sexps? Sexps are a natural fit > to at least one other domain I can think of: mathematics. And if only > mathematicians used sexps it would be easy to generate things like > automated proof-vetters and the like using lisp. :) The fact that mathematicians appear to disagree (viz. Mathematica, MatLab, fortress, etc) should be taken into account. The concept of "natural fit" is inextricably bound up with all sorts of context: "natural" for who, working towards what purpose, collaborating with which colleagues, etc. Being Clojure programmers, of course we would prefer that the entire world fit itself through our s-expression-shaped lens – things would be so much easier for us! – but I suspect the world may not find much value in that particular upside. That assertion can easily be adapted as necessary for all programmers. - Chas -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
