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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7fb761492573daee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: No top schools use Ada
Date: 1995/04/20
Message-ID: <dewar.798404471@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101283307
references: <dewar.798344756@gnat> <1995Apr20.105933.18413@driftwood.cray.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Yes, I know you can program like this in Scheme, but what's the point?
To me if you are going to use a lisp-like language, it is horrible to
use this kind of procedural style. I would prefer to teach Haskel, as an
honest functional language, and Ada as an honest procedural language. I
find Scheme OK reasonable only if you confine your view to its functional
subset. To understand that your code really is in an insort place requires
a view of the semantics of the Scheme implementation that seems quite
inappropriate to me.

oops I mean inplace sort, not insort place, but I rather like the latter
thought, so I will keep it :-)