LISP - CommonLisp / Scheme - Differences
ilias
the differences between Scheme and Common Lisp?
Peter Lewerin
> Can someone point me to a (if possible short) document which explains
> the differences between Scheme and Common Lisp?
From Google I got (among others):
<URL:
http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~strandh/Teaching/MTP/Common/Strandh-Tutorial/diff-scheme.html>
<URL: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/novak/schemevscl.html>
<URL: http://jaderholm.com:2222/scott/38>
<URL: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~topramen/exploring.html#Common>
ilias
i've read them.
scheme makes no sense.
all lisp-dialects => common lisp.
scheme not.
scheme = the most stubborn lispers.
at least it looks so.
anyway.
Feuer
> i've read them.
>
> scheme makes no sense.
>
> all lisp-dialects => common lisp.
>
> scheme not.
>
> scheme = the most stubborn lispers.
>
> at least it looks so.
>
> anyway.
You are an idiot. Common Lisp is only one of a number of Lisps,
though more popular than most. Scheme may or may not be a Lisp
(it is a call-by-value impure untyped/unitype functional language
with s-expression syntax, macro systems, a special top-level
environment, and letrec), but it derives directly from Lisp, was
invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp, and is generally
considered a Lisp.
David
Christopher Browne
You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being
/errors/ in the standard.
The bizarre part is that he apparently doesn't really know much of the
language, but heads to some of the most abstruse edges to find what he
regards as 'errors in the language.'
If he visited Scheme, I'm sure that call/cc and some of the more
perverse lambda function forms would prove "grist for the mill."
And unlike the disputes that occasionally take place over what the
pathological contents of lists ought to be (the "Bushnell
controversy"), where know that the people involved in the dispute are
knowledgeable as they have actually /written/ Scheme implementations,
you'd get bald statements like
>> i've read them.
>>
>> scheme makes no sense.
And if you respond to that the least bit unkindly, you'll get accused
of "not being friendly."
What we need is a visit from Olin Shivers...
<http://www.ai.mit.edu/~shivers/autoweapons.html>
"I had recent occasion to view your Presentation Announcement on care
and feeding of automatic weapons during lecture hall. I found it most
amusing. I would very much like to see and/or contribute future
material.
We have similar problems here at Berkeley, though it has been
difficult to wean our students away from more the more mundane
assortment of Browning Hi-Power's, Beretta 92SBF's and Sig-Sauer
P226's. The 9mm clique is pretty strong here, and the young grad
students fairly parsimonious. They tend to balk at the idea of
spending enough money on ammo to make full auto firefights
practical. Lately, they've taken to sniping at each other from the
Campanile tower and engaging in loose hit-and-run guerrilla tactics
during finals. This is obviously not the American Way and needs to be
changed. While I've been able to slowly wean them into more
progressive arms (such as the Beretta 93R and an occasional mini-uzi),
I still can't seem to get past the supply problem.
My questions are:
"Do you buy your ammo in bulk, or do appointed individuals do shifts
on a progressive reloader?"
"Does the school pay for this?"
:-)
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #95. "My dungeon will have its own
qualified medical staff complete with bodyguards. That way if a
prisoner becomes sick and his cellmate tells the guard it's an
emergency, the guard will fetch a trauma team instead of opening up
the cell for a look." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
ilias
> ilias wrote:
>
>
>>i've read them.
>>
>>scheme makes no sense.
>>
>>all lisp-dialects => common lisp.
>>
>>scheme not.
>>
>>scheme = the most stubborn lispers.
>>
>>at least it looks so.
>>
>>anyway.
>
>
> You are an idiot.
you've uncovered me.
> Common Lisp is only one of a number of Lisps,
Common Lisp is the "stop-this-desaster-you-stubborn-kids-lisp"
LISP dialects unified.
> though more popular than most. Scheme may or may not be a Lisp
> (it is a call-by-value impure untyped/unitype functional language
> with s-expression syntax, macro systems, a special top-level
> environment, and letrec),
funny things all this.
> but it derives directly from Lisp,
aha.
> was invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp,
who is that?
> and is generally considered a Lisp.
Scheme is simply redundant.
It should be a subset of ANSI Common Lisp.
ilias
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Feuer <fe...@his.com> wrote:
>
>>ilias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>i've read them.
>>>
>>>scheme makes no sense.
>>>
>>>all lisp-dialects => common lisp.
>>>
>>>scheme not.
>>>
>>>scheme = the most stubborn lispers.
>>>
>>>at least it looks so.
>>>
>>>anyway.
>>
>>You are an idiot. Common Lisp is only one of a number of Lisps,
>>though more popular than most. Scheme may or may not be a Lisp
>>(it is a call-by-value impure untyped/unitype functional language
>>with s-expression syntax, macro systems, a special top-level
>>environment, and letrec), but it derives directly from Lisp, was
>>invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp, and is generally
>>considered a Lisp.
>
>
> You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
> the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
> loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being
> /errors/ in the standard.
i'd like to ask you to not spread missinformation and to not discredit
my person.
what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
whatever i do in c.l.l. was publically anounced in c.l.l.
i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its garbage (means:
avoid to use/learn the parts that i detect as irrelevant, redundant etc.).
Tim Bradshaw
> It should be a subset of ANSI Common Lisp.
call/cc.
I advise anyone who reads cls without reading cll and is considering
getting into a discussion with Ilias to have a quick search on Google
groups
(http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=comp.lang.lisp&as_uauthors=ilias&lr=&num=100&as_scoring=d&hl=en)
for his postings in cll to see what kind of thing you are likely to
get into.
This has been a public service announcement.
--tim
David Rush
ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
> > You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
> > the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
> > loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being
> > /errors/ in the standard.
>
> what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
> i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its garbage (means:
> avoid to use/learn the parts that i detect as irrelevant, redundant
> etc.).
Ah so you really want to program in Scheme, eh?
david rush
--
Don't you think it would be a useful item to add to your intellectual
tookit to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet steaming bullshit
lands on your head, "My goodness, this appears to be bullshit?"
-- Douglas MacArthur Shaftoe, in_Cryptonomicon_
ilias
> (Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text)
>
> ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>
>>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
>>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
>>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being
>>>/errors/ in the standard.
>>
>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
>
> What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp"
"on the effective pretext"
"that he's trying to "learn lisp""
>>i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its garbage (means:
>>avoid to use/learn the parts that i detect as irrelevant, redundant
>>etc.).
>
> Ah so you really want to program in Scheme, eh?
assimilating the best of lisp does not end up in Scheme.
so my answere is: no.
but i'll assimilate the best of scheme.
and throw away its garbage.
Jens Axel Søgaard
> ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>> what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy
>> lies.
>
> What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
>
>> i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its
>> garbage (means: avoid to use/learn the parts that i
>> detect as irrelevant, redundant etc.).
>
> Ah so you really want to program in Scheme, eh?
LOL
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Joe Marshall
> David Rush wrote:
> > (Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text)
> > ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>
> >
>
> >>Christopher Browne wrote:
> >>
> >>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
> >>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
> >>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being
> >>>/errors/ in the standard.
> >>
> >>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
> > What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
>
>
> "has been trolling comp.lang.lisp"
> "on the effective pretext"
> "that he's trying to "learn lisp""
These statements are an accurate summary.
I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in
calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting
patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and
instruction from experienced lisp hackers.
ilias
> ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>
>
>>David Rush wrote:
>>
>>>(Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text)
>>>ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>>
>>>>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
>>>>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
>>>>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being
>>>>>/errors/ in the standard.
>>>>
>>>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
>>>
>>>What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
>>
>>"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp"
>>"on the effective pretext"
>>"that he's trying to "learn lisp""
>
> These statements are an accurate summary.
this summary implies: i'm not telling the truth.
> I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in
> calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting
> patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and
> instruction from experienced lisp hackers.
you are posting just a patently false statement. and that is about my
person.
the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they see
that they get reasonable critique back.
i claim.
they rejoin.
i rejoin.
the say: crazy guy.
the say: <silince>
Anton van Straaten
>
> 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."
Anton
ilias
>>>[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,
yes, a little overstated.
> but the person in question
> is Guy Lewis Steele Jr.
aha.
read something about him.
works @sun.
since 1994.
did he left his baby (Scheme)?
>
> 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 community looks much better organized than common lisp community.
>>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."
cannot judge that.
don't know what 'relational calculus' is.
but i sense that your comparision is wrong.
anyway.
as i'd like to avoid reading to much:
can you tell me, if scheme has:
- the syntax-modification-capabilities of Common-Lisp (readtable,
reader-macros, etc.)?
- the macro-system-capabilities of Common-Lisp?
Joe Marshall
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> > ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
> >
>
> >>David Rush wrote:
> >>
> >>>(Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text)
> >>>ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
> >>
> >>>>Christopher Browne wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
> >>>>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
> >>>>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being
> >>>>>/errors/ in the standard.
> >>>>
> >>>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
> >>>
> >>>What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
> >>
> >>"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp"
> >>"on the effective pretext"
> >>"that he's trying to "learn lisp""
> > These statements are an accurate summary.
>
> this summary implies: i'm not telling the truth.
Certainly you are posting things that are demonstrably false.
> > I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in
> > calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting
> > patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and
> > instruction from experienced lisp hackers.
>
> you are posting just a patently false statement. and that is about my
> person.
To wit: ``the innermost [backquoted form] is not expanded first'' That
this is false has been demonstrated by five different people. You
nonetheless have continued to post articles that claim that backquoted
forms are incorrectly expanded.
Another example: ``An ANSI Conforming Common Lisp implementation
*must* execute:
(set-syntax-from-char #\] #\) ) ; => T
(set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\( ) ; => T
[+ 3 2] ; => 5''
This posted after numerous people (myself included) have pointed out
that the ANSI standard explicitly states
``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand.
The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the
definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
Over a dozen people have pointed out this error to you in literally
hundreds of responses, yet you still post that statement.
In regards to those two topics, not a single person --- not one ---
believed that you had done anything but misinterpret the spec.
I stand by my statement: ``ilias has persisted in posting patently
false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and instruction
from experienced lisp hackers.''
> the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they
> see that they get reasonable critique back.
>
>
> i claim.
>
> they rejoin.
>
> i rejoin.
>
> the say: crazy guy.
>
> the say: <silince>
I suggest you get used to this.
Jens Axel Søgaard
> as i'd like to avoid reading to much:
Hmrph.
> can you tell me, if scheme has:
>
> - the syntax-modification-capabilities of Common-Lisp
> (readtable, reader-macros, etc.)?
If you want to avoid reading, why do you
care about readtable and reader-macros?
Anyways.
Scheme: no.
Some implementations: yes.
> - the macro-system-capabilities of Common-Lisp?
Scheme: no.
Almost all implementations: yes.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
There's small choice in rotten apples.
-- William Shakespeare, "The Taming of the Shrew"
Feuer
> Scheme: no.
> Almost all implementations: yes.
Wouldn't you say syntax-case has become part of Scheme, though not yet
part of any Scheme standard?
David
ilias
> ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>>Joe Marshall wrote:
>>>ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>>>>David Rush wrote:
>>>>>(Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text)
>>>>>ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>>>>>>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling
comp.lang.lisp on
>>>>>>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on
>>>>>>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as
being
>>>>>>>/errors/ in the standard.
>>>>>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
>>>>>What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
>>>>"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp"
>>>>"on the effective pretext"
>>>>"that he's trying to "learn lisp""
>>>These statements are an accurate summary.
>>this summary implies: i'm not telling the truth.
> Certainly you are posting things that are demonstrably false.
go there.
demonstrate it *in* the argumentation lines.
not here, like a kid screaming @mama.
>>>I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in
>>>calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting
>>>patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and
>>>instruction from experienced lisp hackers.
>>
>>you are posting just a patently false statement. and that is about my
>>person.
>
> To wit: ``the innermost [backquoted form] is not expanded first'' That
> this is false has been demonstrated by five different people. You
> nonetheless have continued to post articles that claim that backquoted
> forms are incorrectly expanded.
the innermost backquoted form is *not* expanded first.
go to the topic.
> Another example: ``An ANSI Conforming Common Lisp implementation
> *must* execute:
>
> (set-syntax-from-char #\] #\) ) ; => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\( ) ; => T
> [+ 3 2] ; => 5''
>
> This posted after numerous people (myself included) have pointed out
> that the ANSI standard explicitly states
> ``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the
other hand.
> The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c},
because the
> definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a
closing brace.''
the standard has other sections, which supersedes this paragraph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*Claim* (shortform, see section [claim] for details):
An ANSI Conforming Common Lisp implementation *must* execute:
(set-syntax-from-char #\] #\) ) ; => T
(set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\( ) ; => T
[+ 3 2] ; => 5
*Rationales* (shortforms, see sections [derivation <x>] for details):
The standard document defines explicitly:
*Rationale a)* - see section [derivation a]
" A *right-parenthesis* terminates any token, and the
*right-parenthesis-reader macro function* is called no matter where the
*right-parenthesis* appears."
*Rationale b)* - see section [derivation b]
"[...] Upon encountering a *right-parenthesis* the *function READ* calls
the *right-parenthesis-reader macro function*"
*Rationale c)* - see section [derivation c]
" A *right-parenthesis* has an associated function called a reader macro
function that implements its specialized parsing behavior. [...] "
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=alot2c$pkv$1...@usenet.otenet.gr
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Over a dozen people have pointed out this error to you in literally
> hundreds of responses, yet you still post that statement.
you find 2 of the dozen people which have responded with rejoinders in
the following links.
and i've responded with rejoinders.
and then silence:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=alu71i$5hg$1...@usenet.otenet.gr
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=alt5am$e6j$1...@usenet.otenet.gr
>
> In regards to those two topics, not a single person --- not one ---
> believed that you had done anything but misinterpret the spec.
this is wrong.
one believes that nested backquote definition is written 'defective' in
the specs.
> I stand by my statement: ``ilias has persisted in posting patently
> false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and instruction
> from experienced lisp hackers.''
feel free.
savages.
the real lisp experts and lisp lovers must be at another place.
>>the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they
>>see that they get reasonable critique back.
>>
>>i claim.
>>
>>they rejoin.
>>
>>i rejoin.
>>
>>the say: crazy guy.
>>
>>the say: <silince>
>
> I suggest you get used to this.
no problem.
that behaviour confirms to me, that i'm right.
Anton van Straaten
That's good, since I'd like to avoid writing too much.
Anton
Jens Axel Søgaard
Yes - normally.
In this case my answer is coloured by the fact that
Ilias follow the letter of standards and not their intent.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
ozan s yigit
> the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they see
> that they get reasonable critique back.
they stop when they see that no matter what, you will not change
your mind and you will not change the subject. it is a difficult
condition to deal with unless one is a specialist...
oz
--
there is a fault in reality. do not adjust your minds. -- salman rushdie
Paolo Amoroso
> You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on
And he was apparently hanging around comp.lang.smalltalk before that.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Joe Marshall
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> >
> > In regards to those two topics, not a single person --- not one ---
> > believed that you had done anything but misinterpret the spec.
>
> this is wrong.
In article <kwfzw4j...@merced.netfonds.no> Espen Vestre states
very clearly that `the spec is not wrong' and that you are
misinterpreting a certain vagueness in the spec. Your response:
`the specs is *wrong*.'
Espen Vestre at a later date retracted his assertion that the spec was
vague.
To my knowledge, there is no poster on comp.lang.lisp (other than
yourself) that believes the specification of backquote in ANSI common
lisp is incorrect.
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> What we need is a visit from Olin Shivers...
> <http://www.ai.mit.edu/~shivers/autoweapons.html>
:-)
Dunno when the last time I laughed that hard was...
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
We English-speaking peoples should keep hold of the essential fact about
foreign languages: They exist to make us laugh. --John Derbyshire
ilias
The incorrectness of the nested backquote specification is independent
of the believings of the savages in comp.lang.lisp.
ilias
> ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>
>>the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they see
>>that they get reasonable critique back.
>
> they stop when they see that no matter what, you will not change
> your mind and you will not change the subject.
not no matter what.
a proof is enouth to change my mind.
a proof, not words.
> it is a difficult condition to deal with unless one is a specialist...
words.
Christopher Browne
> ozan s yigit wrote:
>> ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>>
>>> the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they
>>> see that they get reasonable critique back.
>> they stop when they see that no matter what, you will not change
>> your mind and you will not change the subject.
>
> not no matter what.
>
> a proof is enouth to change my mind.
>
> a proof, not words.
Apparently what's needed is a 'proof without words.'
Here's mine:
[ ]
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #87. "My vats of hazardous chemicals will
be covered when not in use. Also, I will not construct walkways above
them." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
ilias
> After takin a swig o' grog, ilias <at_...@pontos.net> belched out...:
>
>>ozan s yigit wrote:
>>
>>>ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they
>>>>see that they get reasonable critique back.
>>>
>>>they stop when they see that no matter what, you will not change
>>>your mind and you will not change the subject.
>>
>>not no matter what.
>>
>>a proof is enouth to change my mind.
>>
>>a proof, not words.
>
> Apparently what's needed is a 'proof without words.'
>
> Here's mine:
>
> [ ]
emptyness.
thank you for giving an example.
David Rush
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
> >Ilias wrote:
> >>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."
>
> cannot judge that.
Nor can you use english grammar.
> don't know what 'relational calculus' is.
Oh. Well, that's part of a CS grad's basic knowledge.
> but i sense that your comparision is wrong.
On what basis? That it is unflattering to you?
> as i'd like to avoid reading to much:
Kook.
Get a better attitude and you might learn something.
Plonk.
david rush
--
By loudly denouncing all bad things - war and hunger and date
rape - liberals testify to their own terrific goodness.
-- P. J. O'Rourke
ilias
> ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
>>Anton van Straaten wrote:
>>>Ilias wrote:
>>>>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."
>>
>>cannot judge that.
>Nor can you use english grammar.
bravo.
>>don't know what 'relational calculus' is.
>Oh. Well, that's part of a CS grad's basic knowledge.
dont know what a 'CS grad's' is.
>>but i sense that your comparision is wrong.
>On what basis? That it is unflattering to you?
sense.
>>as i'd like to avoid reading to much:
>Kook.
cock.
> Get a better attitude and you might learn something.
better.
> Plonk.
...
>
> david rush
Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]
Do not feed the troll.
Thank you.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
cr88192
and also is something I have implemented piss poor...
of course my failure is not to reflect on others...
--
<cr88192[at]hotmail[dot]com>
<http://bgb1.hypermart.net/>
cr88192
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.