Yoann Padioleau <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> "Anton van Straaten" <email@example.com> writes:
> > Python can be cryptic, and its continuations are an example of that - a
> > hacked feature that wasn't designed into the language from the beginning,
> I am not sure call/cc was in scheme from the beginning.
I'm not sure about that either, but it was pretty darn close to the
beginning. Full TCO *was* and that is *much* more important.
> > Some high-level examples of the advantages of Scheme include:
> > * A very regular syntax,
> many people dont like that at all.
Then they can learn to apreciate good syntax or languish in the fields
of programming mediocrity for the rest of their lives.
> > * The ability to achieve very high performance, often on par with or even
> > exceeding that of C or C++.
> Hmmm, functionnal zealots say this for about 20 years, and never
> succeed i think.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Stalin (a Scheme dialect) regularly
produces faster run-times than hand-coded C/C++. And MLTon is in the
same ballpark (or so I hear). And the OCAML code generator is reputed
to be no slouch at producing fast code, either.
> Sure, because they dont know what they are talking about.
Ilias - i'd like to avoid reading to much:
Anton - That's good, since I'd like to avoid writing too much.
-- Response to Ilias <firstname.lastname@example.org> (on c.l.s)