Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!oz
From: oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: what makes scheme?
Message-ID: <13742@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: 11 Aug 90 05:25:55 GMT
References: <9008031618.AA02461@mailhost.samsung.com> <1990Aug5.175401@sprawl.yorku.ca> <RICH.90Aug7015042@uncle-bens.Rice.edu> <5752@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> <J:25_41@xds13.ferranti.com> <1459@tub.UUCP>
Sender: news@yunexus.YorkU.CA
Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development
Lines: 13

In article <1459@tub.UUCP> net@tub.UUCP (Oliver Laumann) writes:

>I'm asking because I have read this Scheme-implementations-must-be-small
>and XYZ-Scheme-is-too-large argument over and over again.

This is a strawman argument. There is no "must", and there is also nothing
wrong with people asking for smaller interpreters. Some people also use
"small" to mean "free of fat and feeeetures", "well thought out to conserve
code/data space", "proper subset".

I wonder what that XYZ is.

oz