On Feb 21, 2009, at 10:32 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> [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".
Close to 30 years in my case, but a lot less the last 15 years, and how
do I miss it.
Perhaps we differ on why it is great.
I think the size of the core is one reason why I like it. I can hold
all of
it in my head.
I don't mind libraries that add a lot of other procedures. I can
usually
ignore them or learn about them when I need them.
But it is the core that I care about.
> 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).
Yes, me too. But I stopped 15 years ago.
> 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.
No. I didn't say that. I said "don't ruin it". I didn't say that
you had to go
out of your way in that direction.
> 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 think that you are misrepresenting what I said.
> 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".
1. You think I do not care about Scheme's future? Why would I even
lurk on the list or respond to any posts?
2. People can be insulted for many reasons. That's usually a problem
with them, not with me or what I said. From what I stand, what I
said
is fact. Mere wishing that it were otherwise (and I may
vehemently share
those wishes) doesn't make it any less true.
> [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.]
Have you tried having people use it in industry and have to spend 4
months
learning it and hate it for two years after that?
I have. I don't want to repeat the experience.
I wish I knew what it was that makes the Lisp family of languages so
repulsive to most engineers/programmers. Of course, the premise is
that it is only one
thing, but it may be more than that. If we knew, we might consider
changing
it.
I know that the prefix notation and the parentheses are part of it.
I used
to dismiss the complaints against them as 'sour grapes', but I'm
starting
to believe that there is more to it than that.
It may not be the primary reason, but it is certainly one.
And it is the one that they almost invariably give you first, so perhaps
we should take them at their word.
Yes, I know about dylan's dual syntax, etc.
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
