From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
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
Followups-To: comp.lang.misc
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>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