On Jan 22, 2008 1:57 PM, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As I learn Scheme I can't help thinking that it is more "fundamental"
> > than other languages....that Scheme is what other languages would
> > look like if we stripped out all the fluff and syntactic sugar.
>
> That is exactly what it is. When you program in Lisp you are writing the
> abstract syntax tree yourself instead of letting the parser in the
> compiler produce it for you.

An important thing to realize here is that Lisp (LISt Processing) was
developed as a way to express mathematical operations, NOT as a
programming language. The fact that interpreters can be used to
evaluate those expressions on a computer is largely incidental (which
explains why there are so many sub-languages and interpreter
implementations out there).

-- 
Brad Beyenhof
http://augmentedfourth.com
Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also
deprive me of the possibility of being right.
                                                    ~ Igor Stravinsky

-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg

Reply via email to