[emfle]

I am saying that working with objects and methods requires less high-level cognitive processing than macros and continuations, not that you don't have to think about them. This is because the brain can treat the objects largely as if they were physical objects. With macros that is much harder.

No, I don't mean unfamiliar. Things like parentheses and prefix notation are unfamiliar to many people, but once learned, they don't require much more cognitive processing than other notation. There are several things in Java that are similarly weird until you learn them.

[gruseom]

As far as I can tell, you're talking about your experience of what's easier and harder. Your experience is not "the brain".

Certainly if you're habituated to the object-model style of programming, other forms of abstraction may seem weird. The irony here is that twenty years ago, the people making your kind of argument were directing it all against objects.

As a side note, treating programming objects as if they were physical objects works as long as there's a good fit between the two. As soon as you need the objects to behave in ways that physical objects don't (and believe me, in any complex OO system, you will), you find yourself tied up in knots that it will take a lot of thinking to extricate yourself from. (Speaking of complexity that isn't intrinsic to the problem...) Not accidentally, the tools that people reach for then tend to be ersatz versions of metaprogramming (reflection, code generation), and Greenspun is off to the races...

[KirinDave]

"I am saying that working with objects and methods requires less high-level cognitive processing than macros and continuations, not that you don't have to think about them. This is because the brain can treat the objects largely as if they were physical objects. With macros that is much harder."

It's not. It's just a matter of practice. Most people find OO modeling natural (even when it is extremely tortured and difficult) because they've acquired a comfort with it born of many hours of practice. You might argue that you're not referring to familiarity with the paradigm, but I think you are, and don't realize it.

I assure you that a functional style has equal power to abstract as a OO style. You're right, our brains have a good ability to think of things as sets of objects. But the lisp style leverages the linguistic propensity to give words special significance. We're also very good at learning languages and parsing sentences in context, so the lisp linguistic style leverages similar natural cognitive abilities.

[emfle]

I am familiar with functional programming. In fact, for some reason recursion and higher-order functions always seemed easy to me (unlike pointers and virtual methods), but I think that's a quirk of my brain. Many other people seem to have a lot of trouble with the idea that you can just make a recursive call and trust that it's going to do what it is supposed to.

Not me personally, though.

But the lisp style leverages the linguistic propensity to give words special significance. We're also very good at learning languages and parsing sentences in context, so the lisp linguistic style leverages similar natural cognitive abilities.

Linguistic processing does require more cognitive effort, especially when it involves something like a macro that can change the context in which it is invoked. For exactly the same reason, most people are more productive with a graphical user interface than with a command-line one. This is directly related to the fact that abstract linguistic processing is more difficult than manipulation of the tangible, physical objects you find in a GUI.

[gruseom]

Most people find OO modeling natural

I can't resist pointing out again how laughable this sounds to anyone who remembers the long debates about how hard it is to "think in objects" and how objects "would never work for the masses". (Actually, that was right, because the "most people" in question are still largely writing much the same code as they always did and always will; now they just surround it by "public class".)

I'm not disagreeing with you at all; I just feel compelled to make sure that somebody else sees this irony!