From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!ossa.telenet-ops.be!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: is lisp a general purpose lang? References: <1ucgaus6noclncmr4ur6frb0m92pfkvlui@4ax.com> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3226651781574500@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:09:26 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 1017662966 193.71.199.50 (Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:09:26 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:09:26 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:30683 * Fernando Rodríguez | You want to learn programming? If you are a total beginner, I think it's | a better idea to start with scheme instead of common lisp. It's a | simpler lisp dialect that has been designed for teaching. I strongly disagree. Scheme destroys the minds of programmers much more and much worse than BASIC is rumored to do. In order to learn to use any other programming language, a Scheme-trained programmer has to forget all of Scheme and relearn everything from scratch. This is doable, but such a horribly inefficient way of doing things. | "How to design programs" I have to admit, though, this looks like a _great_ book. | "Structure and intepretation of computer programs" (Esse é foda ;-) I no longer think this is a great book. It teaches differences where no basis for comparison has been laid. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.