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