Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!THINK.COM!gls
From: gls@THINK.COM (Guy Steele)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: extension languages can be darn small, yet still powerfull
Message-ID: <9008221359.AA03309@mozart.think.com>
Date: 22 Aug 90 13:59:48 GMT
References: <9008220403.AA03028@schizo>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24


   Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 22:25:36 EDT
   From: gjc@mitech.com
   ...
   So a good way to KILL a language is to require the implementation
   to be unworkable with respect to integration with the rest of
   the known universe.
   ...

By analogy, the way to KILL a text editor is to require it to be
unworkable with respect to integration with the rest of the known
universe.  Therefore EMACS should never have happened, because the
rest of the known universe was Teletypes; and window systems
should never have happened, because the rest of the known universe
was 24x80 displays.

I think what you are doing is great and solves a problem;
what other Lisp implementors are doing is also great
and solving other problems; and it's not all black and white.
One reason Lisp and Scheme are not dead is that there is
enough flexibility of perception that there can be a range
of implementations with different strategies and purposes
all of which fall under the heading of, and can be credited
to, the Lisp or Scheme Way of Doing Things.