On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:43:03 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > to > >> > teach the actual theory of programming languages (lambda calculus, lists > >> > as a foundation unit for all other data structures), Scheme was an ideal > >> > choice for teaching these fundamentals. > >> > >> People misuse language. You say that scheme was "ideal". That literally > >> means that there is *not one single thing* about Scheme that isn't PERFECT > >> for the task, that it reaches a faultless standard of perfection lacking > >> all weaknesses. > > > > As usual you are making up definitions and being ridiculous. > > In most common usage ‘ideal’ is used as opposed to ‘real’ > > Oh? So you're saying that there are other real choices for teaching, > but Scheme is merely ideal? > > The phrase "an ideal choice", if taken at face value, means exactly > what Steven is claiming: that it is logically impossible for there to > be any better choice, because this is the greatest idea you could > have. It is the very definition of "better" and "worse", in that a > better option is nearer to the ideal than a worse one. > > ChrisA
Michael said: [emphasis and re-permuting mine] > Scheme was an ideal choice FOR TEACHING THE FUNDAMENTALS: [viz.] > the actual theory of programming languages — lambda calculus, lists > as a foundation unit for all other data structures. > [Whereas] Python would have been alright to teach "programming"… And it started with me saying that MIT has switched from scheme to python because: [MIT prof’s not my opinion] Not that python is any better at fundamentals than scheme but because hacking together a solution is more centerstage today than clarity in covering fundamentals. IOW those guys like Michael are pitting real vs ideal -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
