I think Prof. Michael Stiber wrote:
>
> If you're taking votes, mine would lie almost always on the side of
> keeping the language syntax simple. Please only add to the language
> syntax if the alternative is truly gruesome. For example, is the "{}"
> syntax better than just having a function that executes Java-like code
> (perhaps "java-progn")? It's not just that I have an affection for
> LISP; I believe that a language is easier to learn and understand (and
> code easier to understand and maintain) if the syntax is simple and
> capabilities merely increase the set of operations in the language
> (easily looked up in an alphabetical function reference).
Yes, indeed. Personally I don't mind the LISP syntax, but it bothers
other people; Rich Halsey discussed another side of this coin in a
different thread earlier today -- the introduction of another,
different language interface to Jess which was more Java-like and less
LISP-like. The truth is, actually, that the LISP-like syntax is more
compact and expressive when it comes to pattern matching. Java syntax
is horrible for regular expressions, and it's horrible for
pattern-matching, too.
>
> I wouldn't want to see JESS turn into C++...
>
Point taken!
---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill
Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234
PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
