Re: Var-free programming (slightly off-topic)

[Dan Weinreb <address@hidden>]

   Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 18:44:18 -0500
   From: Scott McKay <swm@hotdispatch.com>

     (1) It should have a small, reasonably orthogonal core that has extensibility
	  built in from the start.

What counts as extensibility?  Does this mean macros in the sense of
Lisp, Dylan, Jonathan's JSE?

     (2) Dynamically typed.

That really needs to be defined.  Does it mean that type declarations on
variables are not required?

     (3) Highly layered approach to adding functionality.

I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

     (4) It should be easy to provide interactive compilation.  This should not
	 stand in the way of being able to compile reasonably efficiently.

Easy for the implementor?  Is this really a property of the language?

     (5) Simple programs should require no extraneous boilerplate.

I think I know what you mean here, although even here I'd like to get
a bit more specific.  Shriram made this point too and I'll comment on
it when I reply to his mail.

   Here are some failures:

What succeeds?  Only Scheme?

   I think the both the language definition and its *exposition* contribute
   to its light-weight-ness.  Thus, Common Lisp could be described in a
   fashion that makes it appear more light-weight.

That's an interesting point; I hadn't thought of that.