Message from discussion LISP - CommonLisp / Scheme - Differences
From: cr88192 <cr88...@hotmail.nospam.com>
Subject: Re: LISP - CommonLisp / Scheme - Differences
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:19:51 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3D8CB5C5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CgHj9.email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Anton van Straaten wrote:
>> > [Scheme] was invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp,
>> who is that?
> "The creator of Common Lisp" may be a bit strong, but the person in
> question is Guy Lewis Steele Jr.
> If you wish to truly learn about Lisp and Scheme, you could do worse than
> to read the lambda papers by Steele and Sussman:
>> Scheme is simply redundant.
>> It should be a subset of ANSI Common Lisp.
> If you read the above papers, you'll understand that this is a little like
> saying "Relational calculus is simply redundant. It should be a subset of
about 2 years ago I had thought it was so cool. ok, it is still pretty cool
but it is also useful to realize it's limitations. personally I feel it is
not well suited for general data, but for what it is suited it is pretty
at one point I had made a db which had used a bastardized version of the
relational model, I had thought it was pretty cool at the time. sadly the
source has been lost somewhere...
I think I had it to the point of performing simple queries from a text
based version of the db, showing my lack of skill at the time.
I had not particularly liked sql though, and had imagined I could pull off
better, I don't know.
my current means of information storage would seriously not be good for a
database, but the intent is to be good for a vm.
hmm, I wonder now if this is somehow related to my pattern matching, ...
a relational query is necissarily more complex than my pattern matcher, and
necissarily more expensive, it can also work with incomplete patterns,
however it does not have a concept of "closeness" needed for my evaluator...
ok, I lack a point.