[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.