interesting to note that there does not seem to be much research into
programming language syntaxes these days. presumably not very many HCI
types feel that this is an interesting issue anymore. [at least not so
far as i can tell from various HCI proceedings] was there a study that
encouraged the change of the dylan syntax from cambridge notation to
something algol-esque? [i may have asked this before, but i do not
remember getting a definite answer]
oz
--
humpty-dumpty was pushed. | electric: ··@nexus.yorku.ca
- anonymous | or ··@sni.ca [416] 449 9449
In article <················@nexus.yorku.ca>, ··@nexus.yorku.ca
writes:
> interesting to note that there does not seem to be much research into
> programming language syntaxes these days. [...]
See "Extensible Syntax with Lexical Scoping" by L.Cardelli, F.Matthes,
M.Abadi (1994) at:
http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/personal/Luca_Cardelli/Papers.html
I *like* Lisp (actually Scheme) syntax, but for me this paper refuted
the argument that parenthesized-syntax's overwhelming advantage over
other syntaxes was the power that it gave macros.
-thant
In article <··········@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, ····@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff
Dalton) wrote:
) I think people sometimes make a too-simple claim that looks sort of
) like this:
)
) Lisp syntax gives you program-as-data, and that gives you
) Lisp-style macros (which are far superior to substitution
) macros and the like).
)
) Perhaps someone else can come up with a better version of this
) argument, because when I do it I get something that's rather
) unconvincing. I've tried several variations, and they're all
To prevent this thread from extinction ;-) a quick counterargument:
(disclaimer: I have never played with a quality LISP system, and never
really _used_ a LISP system at all; $0.02 may be a high value for this
argument)
- assembler gives you the power to do everything you want
Q: Why then is everybody using higher-level languages?
A: Because they allow you to use code others wrote
Isn't bare LISP something like this? Even the LISP afficionadas
I encounter in this group admit that LISP without macros is
something different from "real LISP". 'They' even admit that
macros can be used to design new languages, which sometimes are
only understood by the programmer him/erself.
Isn't it better to have one such new language in common use?
If I understand things correctly this is what Prolog does; it has
an outer syntax which gets translated ('parsed') into an inner
structure; yet it allows programmers access to the inner structure.
(Note: I'm not saying anything about Prolog's outer structure here)
Reinder Verlinde
From the index of Inside Macintosh:
"Human interface Guidelines: see User interface Guidelines"
I wonder what they are aiming at. Monkeys? Aliens? Mice?