>>>>> "NG" == Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeova...@gmail.com> writes:
NG> In other words, lisp and prolog (and clojure and guile and
NG> scheme....) give the "feeling" that "elegant code" can be the best
NG> software representation "in coding". Why? Because "the correctness
NG> is almost blatant", as stated. In other words, semantics collapses
NG> to syntax. As in mathematics.
If you mean that, provided that the semantic of the elements is
univocal -and it is-, a correctly spelt sentence that you read as
"true" is "true", yes.
Or better, an elegant piece of code that you feel is correct when you
create it, very rarely fails, on the other hand code you struggle to
write can be weak.
The problem is that when the language itself is not elegant, it is
difficult to attain such elegance. But elegance is not bound to a
single language, it belongs to languages whose design is sound.
--
/\ ___ Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____ African word
//--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamico meaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software not install
già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso... Debian"
Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO
