|Current work in compiler/language design. hackeron@Athena.MIT.EDU (Harris L. Gilliam - MIT Project Athena) (1991-11-10)|
|Syntax andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (1991-11-27)|
|Re: Syntax email@example.com (1991-12-03)|
|Re: Syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-12-04)|
|Re: Syntax email@example.com (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) (1991-12-05)|
|Re: Syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-12-05)|
|Re: Syntax email@example.com (Eric A. Anderson) (1991-12-05)|
|Re: Syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-12-05)|
|Re: Syntax email@example.com (1991-12-04)|
|Organization:||Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.|
|Date:||5 Dec 91 23:29:38 GMT|
> In any case, infix is more concise than prefix since it usually requires
> fewer parentheses.
This is so for smaller expressions. But some operators can naturally take many
operands. After the third argument (or after the second if the operator is
more than a single character), you start to see a space savings.
(+ a b) (+ a b c) (+ a b c d)
a + b a + b + c a + b + c + d
(<= a b) (<= a b c) (<= a b c d)
a <= b a <= b <= c a <= b <= c <= d
It's a close call, but without tossing statistics about, I concede the brevity
edge; `usually' is correct. Comprehensibility is affected by so many other
factors besides brevity that it's difficult to make a sweeping statement. My
only comment is Familiarity.
> Many programmers hate LISP, and hate it passionately.
Noted. The vision of many programmers are clouded with poorly-formed
prejudices. I'd wager that the typical exposure is for less than two
weeks in a programming languages survey class as an inexperienced student
who knows Pascal or C. No-one is holding their hand while they struggle
with an unfamiliar language learning an unfamiliar programming style.
This is probably the basis for a lot of negative feelings, which doesn't
reflect the quality of the language.
> These arguments are getting off the topic.
Agreed. Followups are directed to comp.lang.misc.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.