3 ms·

> not be a best choice for occasional use That's a reasonable point, but I struggle to see how other powerful languages differ. Complex syntax and idioms are

> not be a best choice for occasional use That's a reasonable point, but I struggle to see how other powerful languages differ. Complex syntax and idioms are part of the deal if you want to use a powerful language. There's always BASIC... I have never had any problem reading perl, whether my own or others'.

newt0311 18y ago
Actually no. Take lisp for example. It's syntax can be described in a few lines. The functions also are usually quite straight forward and its pretty easy to go back to previous code. Or try python. This language is also pretty easy to work with. The syntax is consistent and the one right way to do thinks philosophy means that reading even other people's code is not a big problem. Contrast this with perl...
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  Those languages are simple if you use the same basic constructs available in every procedural language. You can write BASIC in any language, including Perl. Otherwise, you have to learn complexity. Yes, I'm sure description of lisp's loop function would fit in your few lines...
omouse 18y ago
The syntax of Smalltalk is simple as is the syntax of Lisp. You can create more powerful constructs and define whatever arbitrary syntax you like with both languages. Perl and other C/ALGOL-based-languages don't offer this luxury as they force you to use for loops and while loops and other control structures. Lisp gives you a general do loop and recursion and you define your own control structures based on that. Smalltalk is the same way...a loop is merely a message with a block sent to a receiver object. Perl, C, Python, etc. have rigid syntax and control structures and keywords defined. Common Lisp has only the control structures defined and you can add your own syntax using macros or the syntax read-table. With Smalltalk, the collection objects may have a "while" loop defined, but I can over-ride it if I like.

newt0311 18y ago

Actually no. Take lisp for example. It's syntax can be described in a few lines. The functions also are usually quite straight forward and its pretty easy to go back to previous code. Or try python. This language is also pretty easy to work with. The syntax is consistent and the one right way to do thinks philosophy means that reading even other people's code is not a big problem. Contrast this with perl...

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
Those languages are simple if you use the same basic constructs available in every procedural language. You can write BASIC in any language, including Perl. Otherwise, you have to learn complexity. Yes, I'm sure description of lisp's loop function would fit in your few lines...

omouse 18y ago

The syntax of Smalltalk is simple as is the syntax of Lisp. You can create more powerful constructs and define whatever arbitrary syntax you like with both languages. Perl and other C/ALGOL-based-languages don't offer this luxury as they force you to use for loops and while loops and other control structures. Lisp gives you a general do loop and recursion and you define your own control structures based on that. Smalltalk is the same way...a loop is merely a message with a block sent to a receiver object. Perl, C, Python, etc. have rigid syntax and control structures and keywords defined. Common Lisp has only the control structures defined and you can add your own syntax using macros or the syntax read-table. With Smalltalk, the collection objects may have a "while" loop defined, but I can over-ride it if I like.