(+ 1 2) vs (+ 2 1) is a far cry from "map(lambda x: x * x, numbers)" versus "[x * x for x in numbers]".
I call straw man. I am not asking for zero syntax, or that everything be done in Scheme.
For one thing, I'm not a Lisper, which you think I am. For another thing, Lisp has syntax, so you are incorrect. For yet another thing, I am decrying Too Much Syntax that encourages too many ways of doing things, not taking a dogmatic stand for absolute syntactic minimums. True one cannot make a syntax so pure that there is only one way of doing something. That's a straw man. But on the other hand, one can make a syntax so complicated that it seems to strongly encourage doing the same thing in many ways. Perl and Ruby are guilty of this. Python not nearly as much, but still more than I would like.
Syntactic constructs are a tool. Tools have overhead. Why have redundant syntactic tools? It's enough to get one's head around the problems to be solved.
I call straw man. I am not asking for zero syntax, or that everything be done in Scheme.
For one thing, I'm not a Lisper, which you think I am. For another thing, Lisp has syntax, so you are incorrect. For yet another thing, I am decrying Too Much Syntax that encourages too many ways of doing things, not taking a dogmatic stand for absolute syntactic minimums. True one cannot make a syntax so pure that there is only one way of doing something. That's a straw man. But on the other hand, one can make a syntax so complicated that it seems to strongly encourage doing the same thing in many ways. Perl and Ruby are guilty of this. Python not nearly as much, but still more than I would like.
Syntactic constructs are a tool. Tools have overhead. Why have redundant syntactic tools? It's enough to get one's head around the problems to be solved.