Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!newstand.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!torn!kwon!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!not-for-mail
From: papresco@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: Why lisp failed in the marketplace
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner)
Message-ID: <E5v4JC.43K@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:26:00 GMT
X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test50 (13 Dec 96)
References: <01bc13dc$cfaa2b20$0f02000a@gjchome.nis.newscorp.com> <330512CF.6458@acm.org> <5e92r8$ob2$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <330A09F3.1AA7@acm.org>
Nntp-Posting-Host: calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo Computer Science Club
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:25527 comp.lang.scheme:18732

In article <330A09F3.1AA7@acm.org>, Sin-Yaw Wang  <sinyaw@acm.org> wrote:
>Why lisp failed in the marketplace?  That was the question!
>
>I ventured the answer, "Because Lisp is not natural to most software
>engineer."  I gave several examples on how it is not natural.  Many did
>not like my examples and attacked.

No, you said: "I think fundamentally, Lisp syntax is not natural for human 
being." The statement above is true, because software engineers are 
accustomed to infix and procedural programming. But since most people are
not familiar with either, Lisp syntax will be as easy as that of most other
languages for anyone who has the mental capacity to actually become a 
programmer.

 Paul Prescod

