3 ms·
Well, the lexical scope, certainly, but I don't recall him disparaging the syntax. I don't recall any burning of Dragon Books. Nor was Vaughan Pratt tarred an
by ScottBurson 13y ago
Well, the lexical scope, certainly, but I don't recall him disparaging the syntax.
I don't recall any burning of Dragon Books. Nor was Vaughan Pratt tarred and feathered for releasing CGOL, which allowed one to write Lisp in infix syntax. People were aware of it, and a few people used it, but it didn't catch on in a big way. I don't think this was for ideological reasons; I think it was simply that most people writing Lisp (myself included) found that with proper editor support, editing fully parenthesized code is easy and pleasant -- more so, in many cases, than editing infix code. That is the fact that many non-Lispers cannot believe could possibly be true. And yet over and over again, people who learn Lisp report that it is.