Re: Q about other languages...
Everett Williams wrote:
>And whoever it was that said that Euphoria was ANYTHING like LISP, I hope
>was pulling my leg for the opportunity to put in a bad pun. I took a course
>in LISP 30 years ago...and beyond being interpretive in nature...it is
>wildly different from Euphoria. From what I can tell(and I know the pies are
>headed my direction on this one..I prefer banana cream), Euphoria is less an
>interpreter than it is a "compile and go" or "incremental compiler". Some
>of the concepts from LISP could certainly add to the power of Euphoria, but
>that would take about ten pages, so I think I'll wait till somebody bites on
>that idea before I expatiate.
Well, I've studied a little bit of Lisp myself; I tend to think
of Euphoria's sequence manipulations as being the way that Lisp
*should have* handled lists. I admit my experience is limited,
but out of several other languages I've looked at, I've only
found one that has a central data structure/element/whatever
that is as flexible and powerful as Lisp's list construct:
Euphoria, via it's sequences. Unfortunately, the way Lisp handled
things (where you can alter the contents of A by altering the
contents of B) left a bad taste in my mouth....
Obviously though, Lisp also has the distinct
advantage/disadvantage (depending on your perspective) of
being a functional language, so I wouldn't say they share
much beyond their use of the list/sequence construct.
No pies, just an explanation of how I like to view it. 
Rod Jackson
P.S. -- I'll admit, I'm curious; what could possibly be
added to Euphoria from Lisp that would be beneficial, but
without forcing Euphoria into a functional paradigm? In
condensed form, please. 
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
