Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!newshost.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Unix Weenies (formerly: Removing READ)
Message-ID: <hbaker-2602950905210001@192.0.2.1>
Sender: hbaker@netcom10.netcom.com
Organization: nil
References: <bakulD4H8yp.EL8@netcom.com> <25Feb1995.021048.Alan@LCS.MIT.EDU> <bakulD4L23y.I25@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 17:03:46 GMT
Lines: 15

In article <bakulD4L23y.I25@netcom.com>, bakul@netcom.com (Bakul Shah) wrote:

> I doubt an S-expr can be designed to be as compact as a reg-expr
> to do the same job.

The redundancy of an S-expression should no longer be an issue.  If it
bothers you, use compress/gzip/etc.  Postscript is terribly redundant, which
is why most Postscript files are now compressed in some manner.  By utilizing
a generic compression scheme, one can factor this problem into two distinct
parts, and except in certain peculiar circumstances, one shouldn't worry
about the redundancy of S-expressions ever again.

I would guess that very soon now, compression/decompression schemes will
be built into nearly every microprocessor, so that utilizing such a scheme
will cost very little.
