[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: functional programming is great, but why lists?

To: sk@cs.brown.edu
Subject: Re: functional programming is great, but why lists?
From: Bill Richter <richter@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:10:58 -0500
CC: plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
In-reply-to: <200110110424.AAA13006@bosch.cs.brown.edu> (message from ShriramKrishnamurthi on Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:24:57 -0400 (EDT))
References: <200110102329.f9ANTnH19850@wrath.cs.utah.edu><200110110342.WAA00959@banach.math.nwu.edu> <200110110424.AAA13006@bosch.cs.brown.edu>
Sender: owner-plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu

   In Olin Shivers' memorable phrase,
   
     Minimalism and elegance will guide design, but we should bear in
     mind the dictum that "things should be made as simple as
     possible, but no simpler." Lambda is not a universally sufficient
     value constructor.
   
Sounds good, Shriram.   Would (I almost said "could" :)) you explain
why it's not, why we need lists too?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: functional programming is great, but why lists?
  - From: Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu>
- Re: functional programming is great, but why lists?
  - From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@bbb.caltech.edu>

References:
- 199.25
  - From: Matthew Flatt <mflatt@cs.utah.edu>
- functional programming is great, but why lists?
  - From: Bill Richter <richter@math.nwu.edu>
- functional programming is great, but why lists?
  - From: Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Doc Bugs
Next by Date: Re: functional programming is great, but why lists?
Prev by thread: functional programming is great, but why lists?
Next by thread: Re: functional programming is great, but why lists?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread