daniel@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Weise) (05/25/90)
In article <136167@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> vladimir@prosper writes:
Would you care to elaborate? What features are sufficiently better than,
Scheme or Common Lisp to justify having YAVL (Yet Another Version of Lisp),
another standard, another learning curve?
Please, everyone, let's not have this discussion on comp.lang.scheme.
Please keep it in your own private mailboxes.
Danieljeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (05/26/90)
In article <136167@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) writes: >In article <18139@well.sf.ca.us>, jjacobs@well (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes: >>I'm *very* glad to hear that Le_Lisp is indeed still alive and well in >>Europe. Its too bad that it didn't catch on better in the U.S. >Would you care to elaborate? What features are sufficiently better than, say, >Scheme or Common Lisp to justify having YAVL (Yet Another Version of Lisp), >another standard, another learning curve? Well, Jeff Jacobs is well-known as a critic of Common Lisp, so I'm sure he'll be able to provide some reasons. As for Scheme, it still lacks such things as macros, modules, condition handling, and even the ability to define new (disjoint) types; many people would like to use Lisps that have such features rather than wait for Scheme to do it right. This is not to say Scheme is bad. I'm glad Scheme is being developed in the way it is. However, I also think it's a good idea to have some variety in the Lisp world so that we don't get stuck in too few ways of doing things. Jeff Dalton, JANET: J.Dalton@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: J.Dalton%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!J.Dalton
vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) (05/27/90)
In article <2576@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai (Jeff Dalton) writes: > >As for Scheme, it still lacks such things .... > My question is still unanswered. I'm NOT arguing the merits or flaws of Scheme or Common Lisp. It appears you are, but I'm not. I wanted to know why we need still another version of Lisp. The original poster made an assertion that it was a good thing that Le-Lisp was developed. I am curious why that assertion was made. Are there some features of Le-Lisp that are not present in Scheme or Common Lisp that are "good" to have? What are those features and why are they good? Does Le-Lisp correct some mistakes that other versions of Lisp make? What are those mistakes? Etc., etc. It seems to me these are entirely reasonable questions to ask. I'm not wedded to either Scheme or Common Lisp. And I'm not anit-Scheme ro Common Lisp. If Le-Lisp is better, I'd like to know about it. If its raison-etre is to provide tenure to some professor and employment to a generation of graduate student, I'd like to know that also. I'm seeking information, and I was under the impression that that was what newsgroups were all about. Correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, -- Vladimir -- Vladimir G. Ivanovic vladimir@sun.com M/S 12-33 vladimir@prosper.ebb.eng.sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. vivanovic@sun.com
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (05/28/90)
In article <136285@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) writes: >My question is still unanswered. I'm NOT arguing the merits or flaws of >Scheme or Common Lisp. It appears you are, but I'm not. All I did was provide a list of features that are not yet in (standard or R*RS) Scheme. >Are there some features of Le-Lisp that are not present in Scheme or Common >Lisp that are "good" to have? See my previous message. Common Lisp does have such things, but some people prefer the form they take in Le_Lisp. Since this newsgroup is forwarded to the Scheme mailing list, and since some people on that list don't like to receive discussions of this sort, I think we should persue this via mail or in comp.lang. lisp (where I have directed followups). -- Jeff