On Nov 22, 2007 6:44 PM, Jason Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's ironic that as scientists we learn complexity, but no simplicity. > > Interesting. Above you want precedence rules so that math operators > work as you expect, but then you complain about complexity. Lisp is > the simplest language there is (though Common lisp has some fairly > complicated libraries) and Smalltalk is right behind it (with simpler > yet powerful libraries).
Actually, those precedence rules make formulas easier to read. Maybe Lisp has brainwashed its users, but excessive use of parenthesis isn't so nice, really. :) Moreover, I can't easily change a widely used standard (math), especially not with a programming language, so why should I try to define a conflicting "niche" standard and risk reduced product acceptance? As for Lisp, of course you can call it a simple concept, but you can't deny that the way you have to think is not very natural and sometimes requires a lot of concentration and thought. Maybe my way of thinking just doesn't match Lisp very well, but I'm surely not in a minority. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
