On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Uriel wrote: > >I agree that the linguistic objections with Scheme-alike langs > >can't be dismissed at all, they are one of the reasons that such > >langs weren't very successful for the general purpose. > > > >However there are applications in which such langs are without any > >competitors. And the author ignores the fact, that Scheme-alike > >langs behave like a stack machine, just they are direct > >representations of a special kind of computer (though an > >abstract computer, which cannot be compared with von > >Neumann-like architectures). > > > >But I cannot imagine an abstract Object-Model-like computer. > > WTF are you talking about? any turing complete programming language
I talked about the article, because the article introduced the computer-relation not me (in contrast to you I read the stuff). > represents some 'kind of computer' (what a yucky expression.) What > matters is what kind of abstractions the language has to offer and how > well they fit the problem domain at hand. C and Scheme are good > general purpose languages because they provide very simple yet general Show me a graphics adaptor driver written in Scheme to prove its general purpose facilities. I don't dismiss that Scheme has its place, but to me it is not a general purpose language, even Java or C++ are much more general purpose than Scheme or that Dylan stuff, because they are applicable on a greater domain of problems. > abstractions, C++ and Java are no-purpose languages because the only > thing they are good for is to write books that look like detergent Just an opinion without any reasons? What makes C++ or Java no-purpose langs, give us the reasons. (C is also good to write books, like C for dummies). > >I can agree, I don't like the movie(s), but the idea is quite > >interesting, however reading Freud will present much more > >insights and much more strange ideas of what you believe to > >'know' and who you believe to 'be', if there is any 'being' at > >all... > > Bullshit, the core matrix idea is something every healthy kid eight > years old has > thought about a million times. And Freud was full of shit, maybe many > of his followers were even worse giving him a somewhat worse name than > he deserves, but he was still a moron. I doubt you have ever read anything by Freud. If so, you won't blubber such bullshit, without providing reasons. We all know your argumentation schema. If you get out of reasons/arguments, you begin to offend. That is an old argumentation trick by fundamentalists, already figured out by Socrates when talking with Sophists, nothing new... Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
