Re: Fwd: Dylan stuff

I know that. I guess I didn't finish my thought.

The infix syntax was a failed attempt to appeal to C programmers,
which at the same time turned off legions of Scheme and Lisp
programmers who might otherwise have jumped all over Dylan.

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Bruce Mitchener
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Bruce Hoult <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I like the infix syntax that Dylan has and find it very comfortable to
>> use, but I'm not allergic to prefix. And most of the things that annoy
>> me about elisp and scheme syntax were fixed in the original Dylan
>> prefix syntax anyway.[1]
>>
>> The infix syntax was an attempt to appeal to Pascal and C programmers
>> and it didn't work. The success of JavaScript suggests that the main
>> problem was it was still too different looking to C. Well, and it
>> never had a killer app.
>
>
> This wouldn't be about getting rid of the infix syntax. It would be about
> having alternate readers and being able to have people write code in an
> alternate syntax, such as s-expressions.
>
> I'd like to see it possibly go further one day, but we need at least the
> basics first, and most importantly, someone interested in helping out with
> the actual work (like Mikel Evins).
>
>  - Bruce
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
>
_______________________________________________
hackers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers