Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs. Scheme
Message-ID: <6679@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 89 02:04:27 GMT
References: <TED.89Oct4142437@aigyptos.nmsu.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 18
Followups-To: comp.lang.misc

From ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning):
> in the formal semantics of scheme, the abstract syntax of scheme is
> _6_ lines long.  and yet this language has considerably _more_ power
> than ada in many respects.

   A Turing machine has an extremely simple set of commands, 
   but this does not make its command set a useful programming
   language.  The original Lisp was also quite powerful, but
   the lack of type-checking made it less than useful as a
   practical tool.  Ada is intended to be a superb *production*
   programming language; I seriously doubt that Scheme was 
   designed with that particular objective in mind.

   Followups to comp.lang.misc...
 

   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu