Adam Turoff wrote:
The problem with cons/car/cdr is that they're fundemental operations.
Graham *has* learned from perl, and is receptive to the idea that
fundemental operators should be huffman encoded (lambda - fn). It
would be easy to simply rename car/cdr to first/rest, but that loses
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:16:50AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't
The problem with cons/car/cdr is that they're fundemental operations.
Graham *has* learned from perl, and is receptive to the idea that
fundemental operators should be huffman encoded (lambda - fn). It
would be easy to simply rename car/cdr to first/rest, but that loses
the huffman nature of
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 01:00:26PM -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
The problem with cons/car/cdr is that they're fundemental operations.
Graham *has* learned from perl, and is receptive to the idea that
fundemental operators should be huffman encoded (lambda - fn). It
would be easy to simply
Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:16:50AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling slightly deflated. Given the chance to re-design
Lisp
--- Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
I'm done with 'P'. That's it. Putative planners of programming
paradigms must proffer some prefix preferable to the pathetic
palimpsest that is 'P'!
As with operators, so with programming languages -- Unicode comes not a
moment too soon.
/s
I just finished skimming this write-up, located at
http://paulgraham.com/arcll1.html
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
-r
--
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; phone: +1
