Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Michael Geary]

Andrew Dalke:
> The phrase "they had hard-headed engineering reasons for
> making the syntax look so strange." reminds me of the statement
> "better first rate salespeople and second rate engineers than
> second rate salespeople and first rate engineers" (and better
> first rate both).  That's saying *nothing* about the languages;
> it's saying that his viewpoint seems to exclude the idea that
> there are hard-headed non-engineering reasons for doing things."
>
> Consider one of those "hard-headed engineering reasons", at
> http://www.paulgraham.com/popular.html
>
>    It has sometimes been said that Lisp should use first and
>    rest instead of car and cdr, because it would make programs
>    easier to read. Maybe for the first couple hours. But a hacker
>    can learn quickly enough that car means the first element
>    of a list and cdr means the rest. Using first and rest means
>    50% more typing. And they are also different lengths, meaning
>    that the arguments won't line up when they're called,
>
> That to me is a solid case of post hoc ergo proper.  The
> words "1st" and "rst" are equally as short and easier to
> memorize.  And if terseness were very important, then
> what about using "." for car and ">" for cdr?  No, the reason
> is that that's the way it started and it will stay that way
> because of network effects -- is that a solid engineering
> reason?  Well, it depends, but my guess is that he wouldn't
> weight strongly the impact of social behaviours as part of
> good engineering.  I do.

It's pretty funny when you consider that car and cdr were named after the
Contents of Address Register and Contents of Decrement Register on the IBM
704. Now that's a solid engineering reason!

(I'm not knocking Lisp; in fact, this discussion has whetted my appetite to
explore it.)

-Mike