[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp
- From: email@example.com (Jeff Dalton)
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:16:16 GMT
- Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
In article <email@example.com> Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) writes:
>sef@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Fahlman) writes:
>> Not exactly true. The over-riding concern of the people designing
>> Common Lisp was to come up with a design that N different groups, all
>> with different agendas and different existing implementations, could
>> agree on.
That was not the over-riding concern when I was a member of X3J13.
At least it was not my over-riding concern. Perhaps it was the over-
riding concern of some other members, such as Scott and the other
folk now working on Dylan. If so, that says more about them than
about Common Lisp.
>> Keeping small crocks and kludges in the language was very
>> often the price for keeping some group or other from jumping off the
I haven't seen Scott's original message yet, but does he actually
list any of these crocks and kludges?
You know, crocks and kludges are crocks and kludges regardless
of why they were put in the language. Scott would like us to
think Common Lisp is a poor language because the design process
involved discussions among a number of people and -- heaven
forbid -- actual votes. But in fact, Common Lisp is a poor
language only if its properties as a language make it poor.
Let's see the Dylan-based attackers deal with the actual
properties of the language rather than engaging in innuendo
about the design process.