[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU Extension Language Plans
At 12:37 AM 10/25/94 -0400, ozan s. yigit wrote:
>since when the () vs #f distinction became not-terribly-significant?
>adapting this meant breaking countless programs, a lot of lost time.
>were we fools to adapt it?
ANECDOTE: Just a couple of weeks ago, someone was using a dynamic language
and was testing to see if '() was a member of a collection: {1,2,3}. The
answer was TRUE. This was considered a bug and the underlying (Lisp) code
was changed to return FALSE for the above test.
I personally don't like (eq? '() #f) -> #t, but I would vastly perfer to
use an extension language which looks a lot like Scheme with this
particular wart, than to use Tcl. The extension language could be called
GEL or Schemish, or whatever. Any language has warts in a particular
context. The question is one of engineering tradeoff: given a range of
options in a particular problem domain, which of the choices would you
rather use?
I do feel that helping Stallman & Co use a language conformant with
IEEE/ANSI Standard Scheme has benefits, [1] because many corporate
environments allow the use only of languages with a standard by some
recognized organization and [2] it would be good to be able to run much of
the resulting code in the current Scheme environments. On the other hand,
if the choice is between Tcl, Visual Basic, C++, etc. or GEL...
Take your pick,
-Ken