Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Raffael Cavallaro]

In article <pan.2003.10.13.11.11.45.541879 at knm.org.pl>,
 Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak at knm.org.pl> wrote:

> Note that Lisp and Scheme have a quite unpleasant anonymous function
> syntax, which induces a stronger tension to macros than in e.g. Ruby or
> Haskell.

Actually, I think that any anonymous function syntax is undesirable. I 
think code is inerently more readable when functions are named, 
preferably in a descriptive fashion.

I think it is the mark of functional cleverness that people's code is 
filled with anonymous functions. These show you how the code is doing 
what it does, not what it is doing.

Macros, and named functions, focus on what, not how. HOFs and anonymous 
functions focus on how, not what. How is an implementation detail. What 
is a public interface, and a building block of domain specific languages.