CL functionality in SchemeOS
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:14:05 -0600 (CST)
[Snip -- discussions of ways to reinvent the wheel in Scheme rather
than use CL and save the wasted work]
> >Some of Mark Kantrowitzs portable packages (such as defsystem and
> >xref) should also be considered. Not because these facilities
> >necessarily are The Right Solution (TM) but because metaprogramming is
> >pretty much lacking in the scheme world (AFAIK).
> Then why pick Scheme?? If you want CL functionality, pick CL!
That's what I was thinking. I mean here people are, talking
about ways to leverage existing code, and to write as little
as possible, and then when it really matters, at the very first
step, they pick a language with little functionality just so
they can waste time working on it to make it look like another
language that already exists!
What is wrong with this picture?
As far as I can tell, there are 2 reasons I've seen people use
to justify Scheme:
1) It is elegant.
2) It is small.
For #1, elegance does not mean _CRAP_ if you can't get the job
done. Pascal was elegant but it was utterly useless and it
died the embarassing death deserving of a toy language.
Scheme isn't as useless as Pascal, but it is very low on
functionality. As much as I like Scheme's syntax and better
treatment of functions, and more consistent (and logical)
naming conventions, I would not even consider using it for
real world work because it is too weak. I use Common Lisp
instead -- it gets the job done.
And for #2, Scheme is small because it is lacking in functionality.
Once you start hosing, patching, and munging to make it look like
Common Lisp, it's gonna be a hell of a lot bigger. So why bother?
I agree, use Common Lisp instead. It will save us work and
Of course, to play devil's advocate, somebody did take a step
with Scheme, and given the way this list has operated in the
past, unless we get up off our butts and do something, the
idea will die again.
So we get up, use Scheme since some kind of foundation has
been built, ignore everything I said about leadership, because
I doubt this will happen and actually accomplish something
for a change rather than exchange big (and soon to be forgotten)
And now for the "do what I say, not what I do" segment. I say
this knowing that now I probably will not be able to contribute
anything in the way of code. Since everyone is geared up to use
Linux, that leaves me out since I do not have Linux, and have no
intention of putting it on my hard drive any longer. I've had
enough of Unix at work, and I like to go home and see something
other than segmentation violations and ridiculously awful
user interfaces. Granted Win95 is no masterpiece, but then
it's better than X (but then, what isn't?).
If there's some way I can assist while using Win95, I'm here.
Otherwise, it's been real (I will keep an eye on this list).
> Mike McDonald