On Feb 22, Guillermo J. Rozas wrote:
>
> 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.
And you clearly are not trying hard to push Scheme forward in any
serious way. (Unless you consider "sort-of good for teaching" a good
way to promote the language.)
> > 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.
You keep repeating this; yet it's a non argument. There is a very
clear mirror of this: IMO, making the language case-sensitive is
improving it, so I *am* trying not to ruin it.
> 1. You think I do not care about Scheme's future? Why would I even
> lurk on the list or respond to any posts?
I seriously don't know. Everything you said points at R2RS being your
ideal; so why would you get involved in a mailing list where people
are discussing changes to a language that has already changed since
R2RS? That document is there, it will never change.
> 2. People can be insulted for many reasons. That's usually a
> problem with them, not with me or what I said.
I'm not insulted.
> 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.
And from where I stand, what you say is not only wrong, it is actively
damaging Scheme.
> [...] prefix notation and the parentheses are part of it. [...]
>
> 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.
"Teaching language" is a sentiment I heard *much* more frequently.
--
((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
