spot@OREO.GRAPHICS.CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Draves) writes:
> Franklin Chen <chen@adi.COM> wrote:
> >I'm surprised nobody besides me has mentioned that ML already has this
> >kind of syntax, and that since the proposed ideas look so much like
>
> i've done some ML programming, and the syntax really annoyed me. that
> was programming, not interactive use, but i don't think it would work
> there either.
>
> Ob constructive ideas:
{stuff deleted}
I've heard that after the ML designers finally figured out and specified the
semantics of the language they were in a rush and bolted on the current ML
syntax with little thought.
My impression is that most languages suffer from the same defect (i.e.
syntax as an after thought.) Lisp/Scheme just punted on the issue
completely. It would be nice rather than indulging in flame wars for someone
to actually collect some data about what people actually type at their
prompt or at least cons up a syntax "benchmark" with a list
expressions/commands that should be easily expressed by any command syntax.
If people want to design a "good" syntax it be helpful to start out with a
precise problem statement of some sort.
|