[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
From: |
John Cowan |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander? |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:34:42 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
felix winkelmann scripsit:
> > Chicken's interpreter is not
> > strongly performant, but does provide strong debugging facilities.
>
> I'd remove that last sentence above.
I think it's true: if you want a fast interpreter, you wouldn't use csi,
would you? No use implying that Chicken is something it isn't.
--
John Cowan address@hidden http://ccil.org/~cowan
"The exception proves the rule." Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory." Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."
- Re: [Chicken-users] Debian slander?, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-users] Debian slander?, Peter Busser, 2007/12/19
- [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, Tobia Conforto, 2007/12/20
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, felix winkelmann, 2007/12/20
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, felix winkelmann, 2007/12/22
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?,
John Cowan <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, Zbigniew, 2007/12/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, John Cowan, 2007/12/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, Peter Busser, 2007/12/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, John Cowan, 2007/12/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, Peter Busser, 2007/12/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, John Cowan, 2007/12/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, Ivan Raikov, 2007/12/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, John Cowan, 2007/12/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, Ivan Raikov, 2007/12/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?, John Cowan, 2007/12/27