On Jun 26, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Pablo Barenbaum wrote: >> IMO, part of the problem is that lisp doesn't map well to the >> pseudo-code >> that most non-lispers have in their heads. > > Is pseudo-code from books obsolete for Lisp? > (It doesn't seem to me that all those algorithms are obsolete; > perhaps, > with time, literature will adopt a more lispic style, just as > programming > languages have).
Well, I find that Common Lisp is an excellent language for dealing with pseudo-code because it provides many different control constructs. For an example look at the section "Local Flow of Control" from chapter 20 of Practical Common Lisp[1] where I show how you can create a very literal translation of some very low-level pseudo code from Knuth's _Art of Programming_ and then transform it into "regular" Lisp code. The nice thing is that the first version, which is a quite literal translation of Knuth's code, is something you can actually run and test. Then you can refactor bit by bit and know that you've always got a working version. -Peter [1] <http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/the-special-operators.html> -- Peter Seibel * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/ Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
