Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.lisp
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Lisp or Scheme?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Kent M Pitman  
View profile  
 More options Jan 15 2001, 12:41 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:36:04 GMT
Local: Mon, Jan 15 2001 12:36 am
Subject: Re: Lisp or Scheme?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes:
> Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes:

> > * Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org>
> > | The question still stands - your main problem with "Scheme freaks" is
> > | that they brag at the size of their standard, so, when did it last
> > | happen?

> >   Do you really expect an answer to this anal-retentive rhetorical
> >   question?

> I don't see where this question is being either rhetoric, or anal retentive.

How about just "not productive"?  Erik is right.  It is routine for
Scheme people to cite the size of the ANSI CL standard as a negative,
and explicitly or implicitly to tout the small size of their document
as a model.  Not all such encounters occur in referenceable fashion,
and it's useless/misleading and bordering on obnoxious and passive
aggressive to demand a reference as if the failure to reply with a
reference negated the claim.

Erik's dissection of this was on the mark:  Even for as large as CL is,
no fan of CL would tell you there shouldn't be "more to come" if/when
we have the time to do so.  By contrast, there are people who suggest
that Scheme's small size is a virtue, which works against the Scheme
community by failing to standardize common facilities that everyone needs
to use.  The SRFI process somewhat helps to repair this, but it is not a
consensus body standard nor is it sanctioned by the original group of
authors.  Scheme + other extensions is useful, but it's unfair to "hide"
the size of Scheme in this fashion at the same time as criticizing CL for
its size.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google