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 14:20:22 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Holger Schauer <Holger.Schauer@gmx.de> | I wonder on what basis you draw the conclusion that the distinction is | between verbal and visual and wonder even more about the possible | implications. Sigh. I wrote: 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. | For instance, a verbal learner should not be thrown off by code like | (member (car (list (do-something here (based on another complicated | computation) ... <bunch of further arguments elided>)))). This seems | counterintuitive to me, I think even experienced Lisp programmers tend to | have (reading) problems with such gross code.  On what basis do you conclude something about what a "verbal learner" should or should not be thrown off by? | But then again, I may be one of those who you would classify as a | visual oriented person Why do you think this is an either-or issue? When I write "more verbal than visual" and try to be very clear that we are talking about a point on a line between two extrama, please do not waste my time by assuming that only the extrema are worth talking about. Nobody is "classified" as a visual-oriented person, it is a matter of what you are more comfortable with, not some one-bit flag in your personality. /// -- 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.