This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: (Meta) Guile and direction (Re: Syntatic sugar and identifier permissivity)
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 09:17:46PM +0200, Michael Livshin wrote:
> [ after counting to 10, several times ]
> Lalo Martins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Craig> Stop trolling.
> > I'm not trolling.
> uh-huh. first you propose a wrong-headed syntactic extension, and
> then when people explain why it's wrong you say that Guile lacks
Michael, it is only "wrong-headed" in the context of Scheme.
For the practical user, Guile itself is "wrong-headed", and so
is generic programming instead of class-centered OOP. Your
reasoning is clear proof of what I'm trying to say.
> here's my take on what Guile is: Guile is (not entirely consiously) a
> worse-is-better project. Guile tries to popularize a good language
> (Lisp in the guise of Scheme) by making it be as friendly to C as
Ok, so is this what Guile is? Everyone agrees? So let's delete
the description in www.gnu.org/software/guile and replace it by
some variation of the above and stop lying to the comunity.
> nobody's forcing you to give up Perl, you know.
I hate perl, just for the record.
In fact, there is no "perfect" extension/scripting language
because "perfect" depends on what the programmer/user is used
to and on the task at hand. This is why I decided to bet on a
generic extension/scripting tool, and this is why I don't think
Scheme is a bad language to use as a foundation for that. It's
not inherently better than most other languages, neither it is
inherently worse. And that's all I care for.
Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org )
News for, uh, whatever it is that we are.
pgp key in the personal page
Brazil of Darkness (RPG) --- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar