BASIC vs Python
not [quite] more i squared
ruses at users.ch
Fri Dec 17 18:30:56 EST 2004
Mike Meyer wrote:
> "not [quite] more i squared" <ruses at users.ch> writes:
>
>
>>Adam DePrince wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Given the hardware constraints of the early 1980s, which
>>>>language do you think should have been used instead of BASIC?
>>>
>>>Lisp
>>>Forth
>>
>>Exactly my pick
>
>
> Logo (my pick) has been called "Lisp without the parenthesis". It has
> the advantage of using standard algebraic notation for formulas,
> instead of operator post or pre.
>
> <mike
I'd rather say "Lisp ashamed of S-expressions". Well, mind you, I've nothing
against infix notation but my experience with Logo is that in Logo's case it
is an ugly fixture getting in the way. I say "ugly" because the real beauty of
lisp is with manipulating code as data - and the utter simplicity with which
this can be done in pure lisp is imo much more valuable than the (relative !!)
simplicity of the transform from standard mathematical notation to Logo infix
expression syntax.
Don't get me wrong, I did write non-trivial amounts of code in Logo and had
some fun, in some implementations it is a quite usable language, but
nevertheless its design/aesthetics angers me, like... well like Basic, or
crippleware. Even the turtle graphics... if Guido was Papert there would be no
"complex" type in Python. Sorry, I find it difficult to express, maybe you get
my drift -
More information about the Python-list
mailing list