Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> sounds like you could argue in favor of languages like brainfuck which
> have a minimal set of instructions, yet are still Turing-complete.

Scheme:
Minimalist.  check
Power. check
Flexibility. check

Brainfuck:
Minimalist.  check

>   Eg. just because tail recursion is enough to perform any kind of
> looping construct doesn't necessarily mean that special looping constructs
> wouldn't be a useful tool.

That's why you got for-each in the standard and a few more. (which, obviously,
are macros wrapping tail-recursive calls)

Post a reply to this message