Standardization

[David Bartley <bartley%mips.csc.ti.com@RELAY.CS.NET>]

> As I've mentioned several times, my proposal was intended as yet
> another alternative for the community, with no personal motivation 
> to see it decided one way or the other.
>	[...]
> 2. I am saddened by the animosity I see towards Common Lisp and by
> implication towards the Common Lisp community. I made the proposal because
> I thought the it might serve as a means of bringing two group together who
> would seem to be naturally linked. In fact I have seen people who are my
> friends attack me because they thought I was trying to destroy their
> community. So, I withdraw my proposal, and I guess I withdraw from the
> arena of bringing the Lisp/Scheme communities together.

I have no animosity towards Common Lisp or the Common Lisp community
and I did not take your proposal as a threat.  Perhaps I expressed
myself badly.  I also had a positive message to convey---that Scheme
and Common Lisp have distinct roles to play and we must take care that
they not be conflated.  Bringing the two groups together as you
suggest is indeed a natural and healthy linking.  I respectfully
differ on whether it is in Scheme's best interests to be standardized
by the group standardizing Common Lisp.  I did not anticipate that my
words could be read as an attack (and certainly not a personal
attack)!  Please accept my apologies.

I favored your proposal when I first read it.  It seemed to offer the
only way for Scheme proponents to participate in the ISO Lisp
standardization.  Unlike some of the others on rrrs-authors, I know
that we have many friends of Scheme in X3J13.  And your earlier
remarks about the folly (and crime) of excluding people really hit
home.  I ended up opposing your proposal only because I concluded that
it wouldn't work out well.

Earlier, you wrote:

    I suppose it might be natural for one who believes that
    association with Common Lisp is the `worst possible thing for
    Scheme' to not wish to associate with people involved with Common
    Lisp, ...

I work with both Scheme and Common Lisp as do most of my coworkers
here at TI.  I have lead the fight among Scheme implementors to avoid
"gratuitous" conflicts with established CLtL precedent (e.g., the
syntax of numbers).  When asked for advice, I've recommended both
languages, depending on the specific needs of an application.  I'm
truly in both camps.  I see no reason they can't coexist, and I'm
helping to make it happen here.  I imagine the same could be said for
Will.  And I value my associations with both sets of people.

My experience has been that some users consider Scheme as merely an
alternative Lisp but others understand and appreciate its differences.
My wanting to "help bring Scheme out from under the shadow of Common
Lisp (and X3J13)" is merely that---Scheme and Common Lisp are equally
noteworthy and each deserves its own place in the sun.

> Enjoy your battle.
>
> 			-rpg-

Please don't give up on us.  I appreciate the spirit in which your
proposal was made and I've always considered you one of us.

--db--