Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: cr88192 <cr88...@hotmail.nospam.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: LISP - CommonLisp / Scheme - Differences
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:19:51 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <up2aqboh4l2rf5@corp.supernews.com>
References: <ami163$cp5$1@usenet.otenet.gr> <amiavm$jjq$1@usenet.otenet.gr> <3D8CB5C5.4201934@his.com> <amme2a$2qh$1@usenet.otenet.gr> <CgHj9.10065$k27.844474@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 49

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:
> http://library.readscheme.org/page1.html
> 
>> 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
> SQL-92."
> 
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 
good.

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.

-- 
<cr88192[at]hotmail[dot]com>
<http://bgb1.hypermart.net/>