I V schrieb: > One of the things I've always found off-putting about lisp as that all the > syntax looks the same. In Algol-derived languages, each syntactic > construct has a fairly distinctive appearance, so when, for instance, I > encounter a for loop, I can quickly recognize that that's what it is, and > bracket out the "scaffolding" and pick out the details that interest me.
I guess towards the intentional programming guys around Charles Simonyi also all Algol languages look roughly the same. I remember how annoyed I was as a math student that no PL supported my familiar notations directly. I don't even try to speculate what chemists think about ASCII. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
