2009/11/11 Antoni Grzymala <ant...@chopin.edu.pl>: > Looks like you didn't give more than half a minute's time, to see what > Lisp's syntax (or rather the lack of it) is actually about. Your hopes > are vain.
It doesn't take long to judge clarity. Perhaps experience is a critical factor but to me it seems a lot easier to quickly glance over well written C code and be able to tell what's going on than a chunk of Lisp. 2009/11/11 markus schnalke <mei...@marmaro.de>: > I assume now even more, you never came much in contact with Lisp. > Laughing on the parens is what many people do -- ones who never > recognized the conceptual elegance of the Lisp syntax. You're right, I don't see the elegance of Lisp. Perhaps if you can explain the merits that outweigh the cumbersome syntax you might stand a better chance of convincing me otherwise. > I am one of the C folks too, but I learned about Lisp. Its syntax is > based on such a simple concept, that it can not be anything else than > clean. As far as I can tell, Lisp's primary features are that everything is a list and that logic/arithmetic is specified in polish notation. TCL has a similar concept with lists but in my mind has a nicer syntax. > Please, first understand the concepts of the Lisp syntax and ignore > your habits, then tell again there is no cleaner syntax than C's. To be fair I never said "there is no cleaner syntax than C", what I said was "It's the cleanest and most logical syntax I've come across so far.", and I stand by that. If there's anything special about the Lisp syntax that makes it elegant, it's not immediately obvious to me so you're going to have to point it out.
