Hi Pascal, OK I've read it. So what's your point? (Don't send me to another wandering reference). In fact YOU are saying just what I said: "I'm just 'inventing' a language for the domain"
Let's start again. Do you think people brought up on C/Java syntax have lisp pseudo-code in their heads? Or are you saying that the lisp form is easier to read? If that's you point, you missed mine. Most programmers have about three tools in their heads: iteration, conditionals, and function calls. So I have argued that they find it difficult to read code which uses additional abstractions. They aren't familiar with the idea of having syntactic abstractions. PS I think the term "runnable pseudocode" gives a silly name to a common practice, thus making it sound as ludicrous as "sofware through pictures." Peter Denno writes: > On Sunday 25 June 2006 13:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Re: Possible FAQ question: The myth about Lisp code being > > 'write only' (Larry Clapp > > I've heard it. And even if I hadn't I think it's worth some consideration. > IMO, part of the problem is that lisp doesn't map well to the pseudo-code > that most non-lispers have in their heads. [...] Lies, lies and lies! http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/a069a16ba3db003e/69bc8553f562cc30?lnk=st&q=pseudocode++group%3Acomp.lang.lisp&rnum=1&hl=en#69bc8553f562cc30 > The kernel of truth is that it is possible with lisp to use macro's so heavily > that it is hard to adjust to someone else's code. Lies, lies and lies! See above link again. > [...] -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ "A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code!" -- - Best regards, Peter _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
