[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
A vote against standardization
- To: rrrs-authors@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
- Subject: A vote against standardization
- From: ramsdell%linus@mitre-bedford.ARPA
- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 87 09:46:55 EST
- In-Reply-To: Dick Gabriel's message of 22 Dec 87 0956 PST <8712222018.AA08060@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
- Posted-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 87 09:46:55 EST
- Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
I must agree with a few of Dick's comments, especially those
pertaining to the question of timing. It seems to me too early to
standardize Scheme, a language destined to go through big changes.
1) Currently, there is no conforming macro facility, nor an official
description of the correct one.
2) The situation with EVAL is not settled (I favor Rees's EVAL-IN-R3RS).
3) I would not like to see us get into the same mess Common Lisp got
into over object-oriented programming. We should standardize after
there is some consensus on what to do on that subject. I am eagarly
awaiting Adam's and Clinger's suggestion.
4) We have no support for the development of large systems. I think
this is an area that the Scheme community could greatly advance.
Dick's interview in UNIX Review points out the limitation of Common
Lisp. Let's standardize after we have something to say about large
systems.
5) Parallelism? Maybe we should break ground?
John