Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!hbaker
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Why lisp failed in the marketplace
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Message-ID: <hbaker-1802971003140001@10.0.2.1>
Sender: hbaker@netcom5.netcom.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: nil
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0
References: <01bc13dc$cfaa2b20$0f02000a@gjchome.nis.newscorp.com> <330512CF.6458@acm.org> <hbaker-1502970919500001@10.0.2.1> <33096B71.1C04@acm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:03:14 GMT
Lines: 44
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:25489 comp.lang.scheme:18705

In article <33096B71.1C04@acm.com>, sinyaw@acm.com wrote:

> Why do we argue if this syntax is natural or not?  This is silly.  Go
> find a good sample of software engineers and ask them, "Is Lisp syntax
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and recursive thinking natural to you?"  Tally the responses and you
                         ^^^^^^^
> have the answer.  No amount of argument will change that fact.  (This
> seems like a good grad school project.)

Bzzzt!!  We we talking about students, and now you bring up 'SW engineers'.
'SW engineering' is a myth promulgated by Ada advocates who couldn't think
of any other way to sell their dog language.
There is also the highly charged question of what is 'natural'...   I
think that a great deal of ink has been spilled in vain by philosophers
over this question...

> I will place my bets on right now...
> 
> Gone are the days people (even professionals) change for computer.  It
                                                ^^^^^^
> is the time computer must become natural to people.  Whether the syntax
                                   ^^^^^^^
> is mathematically beuatiful does not make it more natural.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I still assert that the more natural the syntax, the more productive
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
> your engineers.  How can anyone dispute this fact? 
                                               ^^^^

'Change' from what to what?  Who is to say that infix is 'natural'?  If you
ask 3rd graders, I think you'd get a real diversity of opinion about this.

'Natural' is highly dependent on your context.  I'm just guessing, but I
suspect that you find Chinese characters more 'natural' than ASCII text.

'Mathematical beauty' and 'productivity' _do_ often go hand-in-hand.  A system
that can be taught faster and can do more will be more productive.

I don't think that there was ever any argument about whether Lisp was more
productive (especially on Lisp machines).  I think that the question was
whether the productivity was worth the extra cost, and whether the result
of this productivity could be delivered on low-cost platforms.
