Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Björn Lindberg]

"Andrew Dalke" <adalke at mindspring.com> writes:

> prunesquallor at comcast.net:
> > So either the syntax doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference
> > in readability, or readability doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of
> > difference in utility.
> 
> Or the people who prefer the awesome power that is Lisp and
> Scheme don't find the limited syntax to be a problem.

All evidence points to the fact that Lisp syntax is no worse than
Algol-style syntax. As Joe explained, other syntaxes have been used
for Lisp many times over the years, but lispers seem to prefer the
s-exp one. If anything, one could draw the conclusion that s-exp
syntax must be /better/ than Algol-style syntax since the programmers
who have a choice which of them to use -- for the same language --
apparently choose s-exp syntax. You really have no grounds to call
Lisp syntax limited.


Björn