Re: a (revised) draft of R5RS

[Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk>]

>    From: Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk>
>    Date: Thu, 20 Mar 97 02:55:34 GMT
> 
>    In any case, I think the only answer for those who are not satisfied
>    with Scheme more or less as it is now is for them to develop a new
>    language.
> 
> Okay.  Let's design a language modeled after Scheme without the
> constraint of being compatible with Scheme.  I suggest that the focus
> be on supporting multithreaded and distributed applications.  [...]
> 
> Next we need a threads package that makes independently scheduled
> threads available to applications.  And a distributed programming
> system not too much unlike the work from NEC.  And .... oh, who am I
> kidding?  Java has already filled this void.  Maybe Scheme should just
> remain as an elegant jewel for all to look at.

I'm not sure whether you agree with me, or disagee, or some mixture
of the two, or something else.  Anyway, if we develop a new language,
we would be leaving Scheme as an elegant jewel for all to look at.

In any case, I don't think there needs to be a void to fill in the
sense that seems to be involved above.  That we have one language
with certain properties does not mean there's no point in having
another.  I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to use Scheme-based
language to Java.

(There is, of course, a void in language space, not quite where Java
is, but offset in the direction of Lisp-like syntax, call/cc, etc.)

-- jeff