Subject: Re: looking for a language with any of the following 4 charachteristics (all 4 would be nice). From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:12:00 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Ed L Cashin <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Also, I remember thinking that lisp looked like "text vomit" compared | to languages whose structure lexically mirrors what's going on. It appears warranted by the various reactions people have posted and told of elsewhere to conclude that Common Lisp is a language that is better suited for those who are more verbal than visual in how they remember and learn. Those who are more visual, tend to be thrown off by the lack of visual clues and the preponderance of words they need to recognize in order to "see" the structure. The verbal, who recognize words the way the visual see pictures and figures, have no such problem. However, since XML and the like is not the disaster it should have been, I guess that either those who use it are completely clueless verbally as well as visually (95% chance of being true) or people can learn to be more verbal even if they are "naturally" visual (5% chance of being true). This is not to imply that those who are more verbal than visual are superior beings, but they are clearly more suited to certain tasks than those who are more visual. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.