From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77A4BC88 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:17:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j141Hux4027731 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:17:56 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA31721 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:17:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.194]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j141HtoZ001421 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:17:55 +0100 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so544961rng for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:17:55 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=LR48yxkwdFzjndy5yNZUIjK9JVL75YAKqkEwc7nWmoJe4+eQ3XYnAyILg58Cy3cc43OgloeWvDKhZCiwtHYznQ/lSC0HNza4ncncSLC+fMgWuK6XD5B9S3Jh+nH6+4HKVvh0o7a/GzgFxGt60e6JcNtf3oA780EFzdSa1UnwQZA= Received: by 10.38.90.65 with SMTP id n65mr12900rnb; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:17:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.86.80 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:17:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <877e9a1705020317171479cc6e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:17:54 -0500 From: Michael Walter Reply-To: Michael Walter To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <891bd33905020213315a2ebb18@mail.gmail.com> <8008871f05020213362d21ba87@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c50971$baad4840$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <1107403128.32586.223.camel@pelican.wigram> <20050203173556.4acec1c5.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> <009a01c50a1e$f6c92080$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <4202A6AA.3030807@trdlnk.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4202CD44.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4202CD43.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 parentheses:01 notation:01 notation:01 notations:01 syntax:01 lisp:01 lisp:01 viewpoint:02 data:02 data:02 encoding:02 expressions:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 00:22:47 +0100 (CET), Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > When I first encountered Lisp, I also found it "ugly", due to the > parentheses. Only later, I learned to understand. One cannot and > should not judge this peculiarity of Lisp from the viewpoint of an > outsider. > > I'm pretty sure (1) musical notation, (2) heavy-handed uses of tensor > notation in supergravity, (3) any other comparable highly specialized > notational system must look exceedingly scary to the uninitiated as well. I think part of the problem is that those are domain-specific notations, whereas S-expressions are used for general purpose (in the domain of expressing programs = data). Differently put, in that they are syntax they try to cover a "broader" (not in the "there are xxx musicians and yyy coders" sense) domain than in what they are useful (the domain of generically representing expressions). A naive and not quite matching example of what I mean is that musical notation isn't used for encoding sample data. Some ex-developer of the Dylan language makes some interesting points about S expressions in a response to Arc (in the feedback on Arc text file on paulgraham.com). Michael