On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:05 -0500, William D Clinger wrote: > Thomas Lord wrote: > > I think they would have a good chance of "kicking > > ass and taking names", so to speak. > > Some of us think the R6RS process had way too much > "kicking ass and taking names". Look where that > got us.
I think the phrase means different things to us so it was a confusing choice of words. Where I come from "kicking ass and taking names" means *only* doing an exceptionally good job. The "asses" being "kicked" are *not* specific people or causes etc. but, rather, are the ghosts of alternative futures. For example, a guy walks into a pool hall, racks 'em up, and without competing against anyone - just for practice - breaks and clears the table in a single run. That guy is kicking asses and taking names. The implied violence is sarcastic. Another guy walks into the pool hall 'cause he thinks someone owes him money from some shady deal. He comes to blows with the bouncers and, indeed sends them packing (before the police arrive and cuff him). That guy's encounter with the bouncers wasn't (where I come from) kicking asses and taking names - there's no humor in that. Rather, that second guy is just an ass. I only meant I think you three would have a good chance of doing a very good job. And when I say "very good job" I include in that the notion that the whole community will agree. You'd be "kicking asses" only against people's fears that you'd do a bad job. > This process should not continue to be a struggle > over who can force whom to adapt to a language of > whomever's choosing. We need more respect for the > diversity of this community and the variety of its > needs, coupled with less contempt for others' ways > of doing things and less confidence about our own > personal preferences being "the right thing" for > everyone else. I completely agree except I'd say it differently and I'd add a qualifier or two: The polarization between "academics and pragmatists"? And between "compiler writers and interpreter writers"? Those polarizations are hung on some true facts but just barely. Mostly they are completely made up. They don't really refer to any particular people in any important way. They're a short-hand for talking about the design space in a dramatic (hence easy to talk about) way. There is no big fight, really, just plenty of small ones. There is no real schism w/in the Scheme underground. It's all just talk. Everything about the process could, indeed, use some reconsideration. The very goal itself could use some reconsideration/refinement. The Scheme community is, my sense at least, rightly angry at itself for R6 not having a more satisfactory afterglow. But, that just means we all have to do better - most likely by doing *differently* - next time. I like my suggested slate in part just because it "mixes things up" in a way that isn't obviously expected - but that also isn't obviously bad, and might have some nice effects. > > If we do this right, we may once again be divided > by nothing more than a common language. > My suggestion is to make that so by pretending and acting as if it already is so. 'Cause, it more or less already is so. Stay loose. -t > Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
