cliffc@libya.rice.edu (Cliff Click) (09/19/90)
For all those folks involved in the Lisp syntax is good/bad wars... I've done some Scheme programming, darn little ML programming and scads of C/Fortran/Pascal/etc programming. I find ML syntax to be incredibly unreadable, while Scheme & C syntax isn't that bad. Is this a function of: 1) Not enough experience with ML, 2) the difficultly of having a type system in a function language, 3) lousy design of ML syntax or 4) none of the above? Gratefully awaiting your enlightened responses, Cliff Click -- Cliff Click cliffc@owlnet.rice.edu
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (09/19/90)
In article <1990Sep18.174851.4175@rice.edu>, cliffc@libya.rice.edu (Cliff Click) writes: |> I've done some Scheme programming, darn little ML programming and scads |> of C/Fortran/Pascal/etc programming. I find ML syntax to be incredibly |> unreadable, while Scheme & C syntax isn't that bad. ML syntax is a little tricky, and quite different from C or Algol syntax. However, it is very convenient for functional programming, in particular if you use lots of currying.