Hal Fulton wrote:
> I was probably looking for Smalltalk and never knew it.

Smalltalk is quite nice, though I found it had the syntactic problem 
that it often made more sense if I read each line backwards. Also, 
Smalltalk tends to come bundled with a GUI that is...ah...'unique'. 
Definitely an acquired taste, and not one I wanted to acquire.

> And conventional wisdom says that Lisp is the prince of all
> languages (though I never learned it).

I find Common Lisp too large and hairy, and Scheme currently lacks 
standards for OO. Also, the complete lack of syntactic sugar in CLOS 
(Common Lisp Object System) makes OO Lisp syntax kinda ugly, in my view. 
The thing is, the Lisp syntax is pretty much the natural one to use for 
functional programming, but it doesn't feel natural for objects.

I'm not generally a big fan of syntactic sugar, because I find syntax 
hard to remember; but I felt Lisp needed a bit of sugar for OO, so once 
I learned OO and started using it more I gradually drifted away from Lisp.


mathew
-- 
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~meta/>
          WE HAVE TACOS