[net.lang.prolog] Syntax again

Pereira%SRI-AI@sri-unix.UUCP (06/11/84)

Stan Shebs arguments (?) are irrefutable, based as they are
on taste and prejudice rather than rational analysis of the
problem.  So here comes my favorite equally ``irrefutable''
argument: If Lisp syntax is so good *for people*, why is it
that the great majority of mathematic and logic texts (even
the Lisp 1.5 book) use operator and function(args) syntax?
Might it be that the S-expression syntax wasn't meant for
*human* consumption even by the inventor of Lisp?


-- Fernando

alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (06/20/84)

> If Lisp syntax is so good *for people*, why is it that
> the great majority of mathematic and logic texts (even
> the Lisp 1.5 book) use operator and function(args) syntax?
> Might it be that the S-expression syntax wasn't meant for
> *human* consumption even by the inventor of Lisp?

It certainly wasn't!  Have the Lisp hackers out there
forgotten about M-expressions and evalquote?

-- 

	Alan S. Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories