Hi -
thanks for the help. I really didn't expect a mailing
list to be such present...
BTw,
Stavros Macrakis schrieb:
>
> I agree with the general principle of not reinventing the wheel. In
> fact, Last with a second argument (as I proposed) is basically the same
> as Common Lisp's last with a second argument (though not exactly). That
> said...
>
> Common Lisp was designed by a bunch of very smart Lisp people who did a
> lot of good work. However, it was designed for professional Lisp
> programmers, who have different background knowledge and expectations
> from the scientists and engineers who are typical users of Maxima. For
> the vast majority of Maxima users, documenting something as "same as
> Common Lisp SUBSEQ" would be useless.
(...)
The Maxima-community seems to be at a point, where it makes sense
to discuss about the concepts of the language itself? I'm *very*
interested, since I am currently fiddling with an own matrix-language
with my windows matrix-"pocket"-calculator MatMate. One of my primary
goals is the ease-of-use, to have a maximum consistent and intuitive
syntax&semantic. Since I came across maxima I'm considering to leave
this stuff, especially if it would be possible to participate with
some concepts in the maxima-developing, since maxima's mathematical
engine seems far beyond my own possibilities. I'll see...
Thanx again -
Gottfried Helms / Kassel