[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Libraries and repositories

> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:17:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: Paul Graham <paulgraham@yahoo.com>
> Cc: ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Sender: owner-ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> Much as I would want to agree with an argument that praises
> Scheme and disses Java, I suspect that the real problem is
> that Scheme is (currently) ruled by a committee and Java
> isn't.  If the Scheme committee got together and blessed a
> huge collection of libraries as an official part of the 
> next version of the language, they would soon come included
> with anything that dared to call itself Scheme.  They're
> not likely to, though; look how long they dithered about
> macros, and what they ended up with.

You don't like define-syntax, syntax-rules, syntax-case et. al.?  They seem
very elegant and useful to me.  I don't think there's anything in the
standard prohibiting defmacro-style macros, and most schemes seem to offer

How many of the examples in On Lisp would be impossible to do with scheme's
"official" macros?  Is it because they're hygienic?

> The wind has shifted.  Languages have more in them, and change
> faster, than you can do with a committee.