Re: scheme - my opinion
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
writes:
> >> >> 2. What constructs in one dialect would be difficult or
> >> >> impossible to implement efficiently in the other?
>
> Hrvoje> Why is this an issue? I don't *want* to implement Scheme
> Hrvoje> in CL, nor do I want to implement CL in Scheme.
>
> >> Some people _are_ thinking in those terms. So it's an issue.
> >> Closed, from your standpoint. Still open, from mine.
>
> Hrvoje> Can you name some of these people? What exactly do they
> Hrvoje> want to achieve by implementing CL in Scheme, or vice
> Hrvoje> versa?
>
> (1) Michael Sperber.
I've never read his messages that way, except in theoretical terms
("CL *can* be implemented in Scheme.") Do you know something that I
don't?
> (2) Keeping CL proponents happy if the engine turns out to be
> Scheme, among other things.
I don't think Scheme will ever satisfy CL proponents.
Indead it will! Me for one.
I was the one that started on a CLOS-like object implementation in
XEmacs two years back. The major reason for stopping that work was the
number of changes that was necessary to complete the project (the
initial and very limited patch for xemacs-20.3 came to 400Kb).
From what I know today, I would much prefer to have scheme as my base
language, and then use CL constructs where appropriate. More or less
like to today with cl.el.
When it come to call/cc, it is just a matter of "getting used to" the
new syntax and semantics. Given the code I have seen from most if not
all of the participants of these language threads, everybody here
should be able to learn call/cc and its uses in a number of days or
weeks.
/tonny