Ned Freed <Ned(_dot_)Freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com> writes:
I also don't like the compromises in language design having an extensible
language implies. We've adopted the position that the language we specify has
to be reasonably reader-friendly. And extensible languages more or less by
definition imply either syntactic rigidity (e.g., PPL, the simpler LISPs,
Forth, the simpler functional languages) or some sort of fairly sophisticated
macro facility (e.g., the more complex LISPs, the more complex functional
languages, Tex and MetaFont, ASN.1 1988). The rigidity we don't want and
the complexity we cannot tolerate.
By "rigid", I assume you mean, "regular, such that the syntactic
rules are fairly simple, and there aren't any exceptions"?
Actually, that's one of the big arguments in favor of having a
regular syntax. A regular syntax doesn't imply that it's less
reader-friendly; it means that there's an abstract syntax for things
like "command" and "expression" which all extensions have to obey.
Historically, I can't think of a single language whose syntax had
lots of exceptions which didn't turn out to either be a miserable flop
for programming (the unix shells, most noteable csh, are a pretty good
example of the phenomenon), or which greatly cleaned up its syntax as
it evolved (perl's a good example).
)Rob