Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: what makes programming? Message-ID: Date: 21 Aug 90 17:12:17 GMT References: <9008201428.AA01042@samsung.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 14 In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > what _is_ the point in writing it if it can't easily be extended to be > scheme? The point is to serve as a small extension language for C programs, to keep people from having to re-invent zillions of tiny inadequate macro languages and configuration file formats. For it to be small enough for this, it's a bit much to expect it to include all the functions in scheme. And it's a bit much to expect it to break C calling conventions. Before evaluating any tool, ask yourself what problem it's designed to solve. That hammer you're criticising might be a perfectly good hole-punch. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com