> The Scheme community is happy that there are many Scheme > implementations and they will not raise their brows if you do not like > any specific Scheme implementation. Common Lisper call it a bug. > However, we call it a feature.
Actually Common Lisp has lots of different implementations, too. Lispers complain that many useful features aren't present (in a standardized way) in many Scheme implementations.
I haven't done much Scheme in a while, maybe the SRFIs changed something about this.
> I have 3 missions:
> a) Man must believe in God
What man? What god? What about women? What about pagan gods, or about one nature god?
> b) Scheme is highly recommended for *scientific numerical calculations"
But probably not as fast as Fortran for that. Yet.
> c) EVERY Scheme implementation has a lot to offer. The Scheme language > standard is a beauty in itslef. Although, Bigloo for example goes > farther and will give you pattern-matching for example:
It would be even more beautiful with a standard module system and separate compilation features.
> You shouldn't go with the impression Scheme is a tiny standard.
But it is. Sure, there are the SRFIs, and they're getting widely implemented, but not all of them in all implementations.
The biggest problem is that there is no standard way to ship Scheme modules, because there is no module system.
-- I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it. Dogbert
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote: > Förster vom Silberwald wrote: >> b) Scheme is highly recommended for *scientific numerical calculations"
> But probably not as fast as Fortran for that. Yet.
That depends what you're doing. For most interesting problems, it simply isn't feasible to implement them in Fortran (it is too tedious and error-prone to be done by hand).
F?rster vom Silberwald <chain_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>a) Man must believe in God >c) The Scheme language >standard is a beauty in itslef. > (map2e::obj fun::obj lis1::pair-nil lis2::pair-nil) > (match-case (list lis2 lis2) > [(() ()) '()] > [((?h1 ???t1) (?h2 ???t2))
Are you being ironic? The above doesn't even look very much like Scheme anymore, let alone "beautyful"..
> What man? What god? What about women? What about pagan gods, or > about one nature god?
I find there's a certain kind of person (or at least an outlook), henceforth "tosser", that just wants other people to believe in _some_ "higher power" other than themselves. In concrete terms, imagine a christian who'd rather deal with a muslim or even a sun-worshipper than an atheist - i.e. they only want people to have "freedom" of choice of a religion at most, rather than the important freedom from religion.
Some atheists, understandably, might have some difficulty trusting people who determine their actions through their assumptions about the whims of their imaginary friends in the sky. But apparently the tosser has difficulty trusting people who don't. Might be about psychological patterns of submission to authority and/or something like the atheist would rather deal with people who have demonstrated capacity for reason and love, the tosser would rather deal with people who have demonstrated capacity for obedience and faith.
Or maybe it's just that it might be easier (I have no data) to convert someone from one faith to another* (typically the tosser's), than from no faith to a faith - i.e. the viral meme complex of the tosser wants a hospitable environment, and one with potential hosts that are susceptible to similar viral meme complexes is preferred to one without such potential hosts where propagation is therefore impossible, even if it means the meme complex has to compete with others for control of hosts... :-)
*e.g. similar to how the christians in Ireland just demoted the celtic pantheon to become the early irish saints by the appropriate string substitutions in the legends, or muslims regarding Jesus as a prophet...
David Golden wrote: > Or maybe it's just that it might be easier (I have no data) to convert > someone from one faith to another* (typically the tosser's), than from > no faith to a faith - i.e. the viral meme complex of the tosser wants a
But everybody knows that (flame-)wars are the worst between different sects and similar religions. See Linux vs BSD (ok, the BSD side doesn't really care :D), Lisp vs Scheme (ok, Lispers in general are quite peaceful), vi vs Emacs, GNU Emacs vs XEmacs, square brackets vs parentheses in Scheme ;)
> hospitable environment, and one with potential hosts that are > susceptible to similar viral meme complexes is preferred to one without > such potential hosts where propagation is therefore impossible, even if > it means the meme complex has to compete with others for control of > hosts... :-)
I think it's easiest to infect a clean host, i.e. one without clear religious preference yet. Atheists often ARE very strongly opinionated, so hard to convert, as are firm Muslims, Christians etc.
> *e.g. similar to how the christians in Ireland just demoted the celtic > pantheon to become the early irish saints by the appropriate string > substitutions in the legends, or muslims regarding Jesus as a > prophet...
Hm, maybe some form of tolerance/subsumption that made it easier (i.e. was necessary) to establish their religions... Like the Mac implementing Unix in order to be accepted by programmer hordes.
-- I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it. Dogbert
Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelm...@web.de> wrote: >I think it's easiest to infect a clean host, i.e. one without clear >religious preference yet. Atheists often ARE very strongly opinionated, >so hard to convert, as are firm Muslims, Christians etc.
We're looking at this tinted by our western glasses, where we're used to meeting haunted-looking people clothed in shades of grey at 9am on Sundays ringing at our door, trying to peddle magazines called "Watchtower" and with a pained smile trying to convince you of the pleasures of Jesus and Kingdom Come; something which is a quite annoying but even more droll experience.
I'd say that when looking at the whole planet, religious beliefs are not spread like a mental infection from person to person by means of treacherous persuasion but rather unconditionally imposed by priests upon the newborn, and, through mass psychosis, enforced by whipping, stoning and leaving in the desert to die against unfaithful individuals.
Marco Antoniotti <marc...@cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >Not only it looks like Common Lisp. It is written in Common Lisp and it >runs on every decent Common Lisp system.
David Golden wrote: > I find there's a certain kind of person (or at least an outlook), > henceforth "tosser", that just wants other people to believe in _some_ > "higher power" other than themselves. In concrete terms, imagine a > christian who'd rather deal with a muslim or even a sun-worshipper than > an atheist - i.e. they only want people to have "freedom" of choice of > a religion at most, rather than the important freedom from religion.
I went through all your concerns when I was younger (now I am at age 31).
However, I resigned from any church (catholic to be specific). In the eyes of the church I am atheist. How silly from their perspective.
Although, the Pope is most of the time right. When I was 18 or 21 or,... I happend to deride the Pope, too.
Things are very complicated. The caveat of Western-Civilications and their cult only holds in a first attempt. It isn't that easy.
Marco Antoniotti wrote: > But the following looks very much like Common Lisp > (use-package "UNIFY") > (defun map2 (fun list-1 list-2) > (match-case (list list-1 list-2) > ((() ()) ()) > (((?h1 . ?t1) (?h2 . ?t2)) > (cons (funcall fun h1 h2) (map2 fun t1 t2))) > ((_ _) (error "Invalid list arguments to map2: ~S ~S." list-1 > list-2)))
That is very interesting. Thanks for the pointer. Didn't know that Common Lisp has some inherent potential.
Would be interesting to hear whether Bigloo pinched from Common Lisp (or the package thereof) or whether the "UNIFY"-package and Bigloo its pattern-matching implementations derive from the same source in the literature.
I must honestly say, that I do not feel the urge very often for using pattern-matching in Scheme. However, I find the Bigloo patttern-matching facilty cool (okay I must honestly say: for the very first time I find Common Lisp also cool).
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Schneewittchen PS: Sorry I didn't know that it will also appear on comp.lang.lisp (I writing from com.lang.scheme, though).
