<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Python vs Scheme: dictionaries</title>
	<atom:link href="http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36</link>
	<description>A Pythoneer&#039;s adventures with Scheme, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:37:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans Nowak</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36/comment-page-1#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans Nowak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36#comment-70</guid>
		<description>The assoc-lists are O(N). Chicken Scheme also has hash tables and other beasts, but for simple cases, assoc-lists are sufficient (or so I think).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The assoc-lists are O(N). Chicken Scheme also has hash tables and other beasts, but for simple cases, assoc-lists are sufficient (or so I think).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Kirby</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36/comment-page-1#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Kirby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36#comment-69</guid>
		<description>What is the runtime complexity of the scheme implementation?  It sounds from the description that it does a linear search through a list of key-value pairs, so would be O(N).  IMHO this is very different behaviour from Python dicts which are O(1).

Or does the list get converted into a hash (or equivalent) by the assoc functions?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the runtime complexity of the scheme implementation?  It sounds from the description that it does a linear search through a list of key-value pairs, so would be O(N).  IMHO this is very different behaviour from Python dicts which are O(1).</p>
<p>Or does the list get converted into a hash (or equivalent) by the assoc functions?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans Nowak</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36/comment-page-1#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans Nowak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36#comment-21</guid>
		<description>:D No, these &quot;Python vs Scheme&quot; posts are meant to compare the languages, not to bash either of them. If you want Scheme bashing, I suggest comp.lang.lisp. ;-)

I do notice that many of my posts get reddited... I&#039;m not sure why... I don&#039;t mind the publicity and the extra readers (especially since I&#039;m just starting with this blog), but I&#039;m not sure my posts are all that interesting right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>:D No, these &#8220;Python vs Scheme&#8221; posts are meant to compare the languages, not to bash either of them. If you want Scheme bashing, I suggest comp.lang.lisp. ;-)</p>
<p>I do notice that many of my posts get reddited&#8230; I&#8217;m not sure why&#8230; I don&#8217;t mind the publicity and the extra readers (especially since I&#8217;m just starting with this blog), but I&#8217;m not sure my posts are all that interesting right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Fredrickson</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36/comment-page-1#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Fredrickson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/36#comment-20</guid>
		<description>I saw your post on Reddit and naively assumed it was a Scheme bashing post of the &quot;Python has dictionaries, Scheme doesn&#039;t, poop on Scheme&quot; type. I was all ready to give you an earful when I find you&#039;re already using my favorite Scheme implementation. What a let down. I&#039;m going to have to find another target for my anger. ;-)

Cheers,
-Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw your post on Reddit and naively assumed it was a Scheme bashing post of the &#8220;Python has dictionaries, Scheme doesn&#8217;t, poop on Scheme&#8221; type. I was all ready to give you an earful when I find you&#8217;re already using my favorite Scheme implementation. What a let down. I&#8217;m going to have to find another target for my anger. ;-)</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
-Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

