30 Oct
2011
30 Oct
'11
11:29 a.m.
On 30/10/11 1:39 PM, Mouse wrote:
Yes, but similarly my point is that you can't teach BOTH CL and Scheme
in one syntax, and trying to teach "generic" Lisp beyond the theoretical
underpinnings covered in Graham's "Roots of Lisp" would be kind of weird
and rather unhelpful, wouldn't it?
Teaching "generic" C is a bit easier, because you could stop at "ANSI"
and remain forwards compatible, only losing K&R, mostly unmourned :)
--Toby
C is
standardised, so it's straightforward to teach standard C. But
you can't teach "standard Lisp" without picking a standard: CL or
Scheme (and then which Scheme standard?)
You can't teach "standard C" without picking a standard, too. There
are at least three (K&R v1, ANSI C, and C99) and probably more that I'm
not aware of or which don't come to mind immediately. "The wonderful
thing about standards is there are so many to choose from!"
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B