On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Sam TH <[email protected]> wrote:
>> IMHO Scheme has a noble, holy purpose: to embarrass the designers of other
>> languages into reconsidering their accretions of features, and to teach
>> budding computer scientists the virtues of parsimony.
>
> and again:
>
>> Should there be one language for both? No; there should be Common Lisp for
>> the industrial users and Scheme for the academic users.
>
> which makes it pretty clear that your goals do not coincide at all
> with mine, or with anyone else who wants this standards process to be
> primarily about creating a dialect of Scheme [1] for use in writing
> portable real programs.
>
> It's fine to have differing goals, but we need to be up-front about
> that fact. If we pretend now that we all have the same goals, we'll
> be very disappointed later when it turns out that we have to choose
> between conflicting goals.
Are the goals inherently incompatible (not the "academic users"
part, but the parsimony in language design part)?
Lynn
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
