Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:30:19 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:20:03 -0400, retard <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote: > >> It doesn't matter what language you use. The concepts are the same >> regardless of the syntax. If I liked the parenthesis hell, I'd probably >> use Lisp. But it's still not a good argument to bring up every time >> Lisp is being discussed. You're dismissing all intelligent discussion >> by ranting about the syntax. Almost everyone here agrees that Lisp has >> too little syntax, so that point doesn't bring any new value. > > Maybe you misunderstood my original statement. Scheme may introduce > some nice paradigms, and be well designed, but I just couldn't get past > the parentheses. Therefore, I have little experience in scheme, even > though I used it. That's all I was saying. > > My professor would write some scheme example on the board, and then > write a bunch of closing parentheses as he was saying "cdr, cons, etc." > so I was absolutely thoroughly lost most of the time :) I'm surprised I > even passed that class. We had to write a scheme interpreter in scheme, > it was probably way too advanced for my brain at the time.
Ok. There are some code visualization tools for Lisp/Scheme with color encoded blocks and indentation instead of parentheses. You could also rewrite 'car' and 'cdr' as 'head' and 'tail'.
