Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!Pereira@SRI-AI From: Pereira%SRI-AI@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog Subject: Syntax again Message-ID: <1009@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Jun-84 09:28:54 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.1009 Posted: Mon Jun 11 09:28:54 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 04:37:47 EDT Lines: 11 Stan Shebs arguments (?) are irrefutable, based as they are on taste and prejudice rather than rational analysis of the problem. So here comes my favorite equally ``irrefutable'' argument: If Lisp syntax is so good *for people*, why is it that the great majority of mathematic and logic texts (even the Lisp 1.5 book) use operator and function(args) syntax? Might it be that the S-expression syntax wasn't meant for *human* consumption even by the inventor of Lisp? -- Fernando