Re: (kick,ass): => kick( ass ) ::

[joao lobato <btnfdp.lobato@...>]

I was focusing on the look of the code. You may not like the
paretheses, but IMHO, in terms of elegance there's Scheme and then
there's everything else. And since you've mentioned Larry Wall, I
searched for and eventually found Lua exactly because Perl always
looked like magic to me (the wrong kind, unlike Scheme)

On 2/6/10, Norman Ramsey <nr@cs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>  > Does Lua need a short lambda syntax? I like FP and lambda calculus as
>  > much as the next guy, but if you want a minimalist functional language
>  > what is wrong with Scheme?
>
> Well, let's see:
>
>   1. The latest standard is an immense, bloated hog.
>
>   2. The previous standard is a bloated hog.
>
>   3. Implementations "embrace and extend" the standard.  Good luck
>      writing portable code.
>
>   4. There's no embedded implementation that even comes close to Lua
>      in quality and craftsmanship.
>
>   5. Scheme doesn't have Lua tables.
>
>   6. Scheme doesn't have metamethods or userdata.
>
>   7. Scheme *requires* call/cc, which places an undue burden on
>      implementations.
>
>   8. Scheme code looks like oatmeal with fingernail clippings.
>
>
> OK, just kidding about that last one---had to channel my inner Larry
> Wall just for a moment.
>
> Seriously, Scheme isn't 'minimalist' any longer, and it hasn't been
> for a long time.  Lua has a much better power-to-weight ratio.  Even
> though I hate, hate, hate the fact that I can't write anonymous
> functions concisely.
>
>
> Norman
>
>