Graham Matthews (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> || Ok thats fair enough, but for me it raises another question, a question
> || that goes to the heart of why people think JO's article is just
> || advertising hype. Why did JO chose to represent everything as a string?
> || Why not everything as a number. Why not everything as a list? The latter
Charles Lin wrote:
> If one had to choose a single type for everything, a string is a
> pretty good choice. Why not a number? How would you represent a
> string with a number? You can represent a number with a string.
> Just put quotes around it.
Oh come on -- if you have a a finite alphabet then there is a bijection
the natural numbers and strings over that finite alphabet. For example
if you N
symbols in your alphabet, A ..., then AA is represented by N+1.
I was gonna be your Romeo
You were gonna be my Juliet
These days you don't wait on Romeos
You wait on that welfare cheque