Standardization (meetings and relation to CL)

[ramsdell%linus@mitre-bedford.ARPA]

Given the number responses to the idea of MITRE hosting a meeting
about Scheme standardization, I conclude there is insufficient interest.
However, I got the details of hosting meetings at MITRE.  I found
there are no problems, but one further constraint.  Meetings held at
MITRE which include non-employees, must occur during normal working
hours.  In other words, Saturdays and Sundays are out.  For the
record, I would be happy to host other Scheme related meetings in the
future as long as they occur on a weekday.

Dick Gabriel:
>2. I am saddened by the animosity I see towards Common Lisp and by
>implication towards the Common Lisp community. ....

I guess Dick's comment was directed at part of one of my notes:
>On the subject of confusing Scheme with Common Lisp, I follow the
>practice of never mentioning Lisp while talking about Scheme unless
>the person I am talking to asks about Scheme's relation to Lisp.  This
>practice avoids the AI baggage, as well as any negative impressions
>the person has of Lisp.  Of course, disowning our connection to Lisp
>would be like disowning one's parents, but I see no need to tie our
>fortunes to Lisp's.  Thus I strongly oppose the idea of expanding
>X3J13 to cover both Lisp and Scheme.  If we choose to standardize
>Scheme, let's do it independently of efforts to standardize other
>dialects of Lisp.

My point was that Scheme and any other dialect of Lisp, such as Common
Lisp, should not be standardized by the same committee.  Just as Ada
documents acknowledge the influence of Pascal, any document on Scheme
should acknowledge the influence of various Lisp dialects.  I am told
Ada designers maintained extensive contact with the designers of other
languages.  I encourage contact with the designers of other dialects
of Lisp, including the designers of Common Lisp.  Never think I would
like to see Dick Gabriel and Guy Steele removed from this list because
they are too closely connected to Common Lisp!  

I endorse Bartley's characterization of the relationship between
Common Lisp and Scheme being in the family of Lisp-like languages,
just as Ada and Pascal are in the Algol-like family.  While Ada and
Pascal are in the same family, they maintain their own identity.  Let
Scheme have its own.  I hold a minority position which worries
about too much connection of the name Scheme with Lisp.  I believe
excessive connection carries unnecessary baggage associated with AI,
and unnecessary baggage associated with other dialects of Lisp.  I
know people who think all modern Lisp-like languages have PROG and GO.
While Common Lisp is often cited as the reason a Lisp-like language
is thought to be a large language, I don't single out Common Lisp as
the sole source of wrong ideas about Scheme.  I think it is a mistake
to assume the average Lisp programmer is clear on the differences
between dialects, and we should aid that programmer when we can.

I respectfully oppose your proposal to broaden the scope of X3J13
because I think if Scheme is to be standardized, it should happen in a
committee independent of other efforts to standardize Lisp dialects.
I did not mean to imply the standardization effort should ignore the
work of other efforts.  In fact, I read some of the Common Lisp
proposals, most recently, the CLOS proposal.  I hope this clears
things up.  
John