[E-Lang] Super Newbie is lost without "The Dot" (was: down with `define' (was: newbie syntax: picayune points from a prejudiced programmer))

[zooko@zooko.com]

 MarcS wrote:

> > P.P.S.  I think maybe required-parens, which MarkM has already blessed,
> > would solve the problems demonstrated herein
> 
> You're tired, I'm tired, and this statement you made as a PPS is correct.
> Everyone one of the problems you blamed on the absence of dots (that I could
> understand in my tired condition) would have been clarified with the new
> required parens notation.


One minor clarification:  what you say is true with regard to actually
reading the code (even given an unsure grasp of all the keywords).  It
is not true with regard to "scanning", in which your eyes are searching
for certain patterns but not processing every word.


I don't think that it is a critical point, and it is plausible [1] to
me that the no-dot syntax is easier to read and write once one is used
to it, so perhaps that outweighs its advantages in terms of scanning
and in terms of familiarity.


But you are right that the problem of *reading* and not being sure
about what's going on is indeed solved by required-parens.


Regards,

Zooko

[1]  But not certain.  I liked Alan Karp's "no-dot" letter in which is
said that this was "overloading whitespace".  Also, if you can't scan
it quickly, then doesn't this mean that it is requiring more "syntax
strain" to process it even when you are reading slowly?