3 ms·
Totally. And, I think that this was a problem, though. This is probably my least-favorite lisp feature. The fact that 'cons' was a fundamental abstraction is e
by JoelMcCracken 14y ago
Totally. And, I think that this was a problem, though.
This is probably my least-favorite lisp feature. The fact that 'cons' was a fundamental abstraction is elegant, but I don't think it makes sense to model everything in terms of lists.
Most lisps support different ways to construct data structures, though, and this is a manifestation of that.
- fusiongyro 14y agoIt doesn't make sense to model everything in terms of lists, but using 'cons' to make your own data structures doesn't force you to. A-lists and p-lists are both mappings that happen to use 'cons'. Are they efficient for thousands of entries? Absolutely not, but they work fine for a dozen, and you can certainly implement more efficient data structures on top of them. It's certainly true that modern Lisps have more structured approaches and this is a very cool improvement on those offerings. I just think "Scheme's approach to data is broken" is a little over the top.