From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Lambda abstractions in C++ vs. Scheme
Date: 1999/01/25
Message-ID: <3126217653442059@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 436508553
References: <78g9pn$f77$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <raffael-2401992024180001@raffaele.ne.mediaone.net>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.lisp

* raffael@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro)
| Notice how the Scheme and C++ are quite dissimilar syntactically, i.e.,
| the Scheme is actually readable.

  and how about dotted lambda lists (&REST arguments) and APPLY?  to me,
  that's essential to passing functions around.

| Notice how the C++ was only made semantically similar to the Scheme code
| by the use of a bizarre preprocessor macro which fundamentally rewrites
| C++ syntax.

  that's unfair.  we'd have to do much the same thing in Scheme and Lisp to
  make it look like C++.  (sorry. :)

  I thought it was interesting to see how impractical C++ is, but I hope
  this mode of C++ programming catches on.  then it will be a lot easier to
  show C++ victims how programming doesn't have to be so painful.

  nonetheless, one gotta admire anyone who is willing to suffer so much.

#:Erik
-- 
  SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random
  intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.