[Apologies for the subject change, and for yet-another-post.]
On Feb 21, Guillermo J. Rozas wrote:
>
> I really think you are barking up the wrong tree, but in the
> process, by (apparently) intentionally ignoring the one partial
> success that Scheme has had, you may end up ruining it even for that
> purpose.
I'll be serious for a moment. I've been hacking Scheme for a little
less than 20 years. Like many other Schemers I strongly believe that
it is a great language -- and I mean "a language", not "a teaching
language". Unlike many other Schemers I have devoted a very large
part of my life to Scheme (most of it to one implementation, but the
point still stands).
Now, you come and say that its only success is in teaching (and even
that is *partial* success) and that this should, in some way, make me
hold opinions that maximize its utility as such. One thing I can
guarantee is that even if I was on the case-insesitive side for
Scheme, and/or even if I was certain that case-insensitivity was
making the language twice easier to learn -- I still wouldn't buy your
point. I hope that you'll realize how your arguments looks from my
point of view.
I expect many people here to share my opinion, and that's exactly
because they take the painful time to care about Scheme's future. In
other words, I expect many people here to be insulted as I am that "a
teaching language" is Scheme's "one partial success".
[Again, apologies for this post -- I have had enough fights with
"Scheme is good for teaching, now let me work" people that I consider
it one of Scheme's most damaging myths. Enjoying a nearly exclusive
crowd of "Scheme believers" I was very surprised to see it appear
here. Perhaps I was too naive and/or optimistic about this crowd.]
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
