NO REALLY

[Scott David Daniels]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> It's slow and no scientific research exists in its favor! Also it 
> doesn't work. Why would I need polymorphism? Lisp had all of this 50 
> years ago anyway. But functional programming by the way SUX TOO! So does 
> procedural programming! And structured programming SUX, GOTO all the way!

Your insightful post here has led me to reflect that a Deterministic
Finite-state Automata, the core of our initial studies of computation,
while not Turing-Equivalent, is blazes fast and thoroughly understood.
Such machines (DFAs) are pure GOTO machines, and therefore incredibly
beautiful; a very sharp knife to cut through modern problems.

This, of course, means that DJIJSTRA (there, one of the J's is right)
SUX!!!!!!!