Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ZURICH.AI.MIT.EDU!markf From: markf@ZURICH.AI.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Scheme as an extension language and call/cc Message-ID: <9008211540.AA01479@life.ai.mit.edu> Date: 21 Aug 90 15:40:13 GMT References: Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Reply-To: markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu Organization: The Internet Lines: 32 In Kellom{ki Pertti writes: >> Although I like the idea of continuations, it seems that for an >> extension language a'la Emacs Lisp they are a bit of overkill >> ... >> remember that an embedded >> extension language is not used as a general purpose programming >> language I worry a little about this sort of attitude because I see it in the plethora of horrendous extension languages that I have to deal with every day. TeX, Postscript(tm), C-shell ... I imagine that their designers all figured that they didn't need this or that feature of "real" programming languages and the rest of us have to suffer for their imaginations. It may be resonable to leave out some of the derivable procedures (and special forms if we ever have macros) since their importance comes more from portablility concerns than expressibility, but the usefulness of extension languages lies at least in part in our inability to envision the fascinating ways that users will extend our prosiac applications. I think that those users (and we, of course) deserve the best tools for creating those fascinating uses. -Mark Mark Friedman MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab 545 Technology Sq. Cambridge, Ma. 02139 markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu