[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: My comments on the R^RS



>Date: Thu, 10 Jul 86 12:39:26 PDT
>From: Andy Cromarty <andy@sun3.ads.ARPA>
>   [...]
>2. As you might expect, I would like to see a somewhat more vigilant
>   attitude in warding off the dark forces of Common Lisp.  It is not
>   compatibilities or incompatibilities that are gratuitous; it is
>   the very act of being concerned with compatibility at all that is
>   gratuitous.  ...

I feel that this point of view is not in Scheme's best interest.  Although
many potential converts to Scheme are unsullied by contact with lesser
lisps, others must either be won away from Common Lisp or must live with
both.  Gratuitous differences in syntax and in the naming of standard
procedures make it much more difficult for them to give Scheme a fair
trial.  Also, many of us are working on implementations in which Scheme
and Common Lisp programs want to share data and call each other.
Gratuitous differences in the data types and in the syntax of numbers (for
example) can make this very frustrating.  I fear that Scheme will usually
be the one that loses if a development team decides the two languages are
not sufficiently compatible.

>            ... We should have our own standards of what a good LISP
>   looks like and stick to them.  The first job of a good language is
>   to be a good language, not to be just like another bad language
>   that's familiar (nor even just like another good language that's
>   familiar).  Common Lisp's goals were nearly the opposite of
>   Scheme's, and however good a job the CL committee did, we owe them
>   no homage.  ...

Although a certain amount of compromise is necessary in agreeing on what
is "gratuitous", it certainly is true that any compromise that changed
Scheme from a "good" language to a "bad" one would not be gratuitous.

>          ...  I recognize that this is more an issue of the design
>   of Scheme than of its documentation in a report, but there seems
>   to me to be entirely too much concern for similarities and
>   dissimilarities w.r.t. Common Lisp in the report.  It may be
>   appropriate to discuss the topic of Scheme vs. CL briefly in the
>   historical section, but there should be a very clear message to the
>   reader that CL followed Scheme -- and continues to, in the sense
>   that Scheme is meant to be a progressive attempt at (LISP) language
>   design rather than a codification and standardization of existing
>   ideas in prior LISPs.   The CL people should be writing reports
>   that compare their work to ours, not the other way around.   ``Let
>   them eat cake.''  [OK, flame off.]

I think we've all agreed that explicit references to Common Lisp in the
Report should be minimized.

Regards,
David Bartley
-------