From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!npeer.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Common Lisp, the one true religion! References: <9nc1vu$6a2ng$1@ID-60069.news.dfncis.de> <3B9A68B6.4AF52FE0@isomedia.com> <3208966756647218@naggum.net> <3B9BF281.BB7A9D73@mediaone.net> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3209070617000512@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 28 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:30:18 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@Norway.EU.net X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 1000081818 193.71.66.49 (Mon, 10 Sep 2001 02:30:18 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 02:30:18 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:16021 [ Please break your lines. ] * Carl Gay > This doesn't really have anything to do with parentheses, though > s-expressions probably make it easier to deal with code as data than, > say, messing around with abstract syntax trees. S-expressions are abstract syntax trees, for all practical purposes. > Personally, I think the ability to treat code as data is overrated. At > least for the types of programming I tend to do. It's certainly not > essential in order to see the huge benefits Lisp can give you. I think the middle sentence is true. > Some people have started referring to them as "syntax extensions", which > may help prevent confusion by association with C-like "macros". > Stressing the ability to do control-flow abstraction with them might also > help. That would be a good thing for Scheme. Common Lisp is not Scheme. > Oddly, they don't seem to have the least aversion to scattering casts > throughout their code... Huh? And what is non-static about casts? ///