Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!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: embedded languages Message-ID: Date: 22 Aug 90 19:48:20 GMT References: <9008211819.AA11007@satchmo> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 In article <9008211819.AA11007@satchmo> rees@parc.xerox.COM writes: > It is simply > inevitable that users will want "general purpose" power (abstraction, > compilability) in purportedly special purpose languages. Which is the whole point of having general purpose, convenient, and easily extended languages that can be packaged into programs, like SIOD, TCL, and so on... > Usually what > happens to a special purpose language is that user pressures force > addition of features that don't fit very well into the original > framework, and you end up with a horrible mess: piles of exceptions, > multiple mechanisms for doing the same thing, etc. You mean like REXX? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com