Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Common Lisp, SOME, EVERY...
Message-ID: <4238@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Feb 91 12:29:44 GMT
References: <1991Feb15.065508.28609@cs.columbia.edu> <47946.27c2d8d3@ccvax.ucd.ie> <1991Feb22.210020.7319@aero.org>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 33

In article <1991Feb22.210020.7319@aero.org> srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner) writes:
>EVERY, SOME, etc., are exactly the kind of "kitchen sink" functions
>that I object to in Common Lisp.  They provide no additional
>functionality to the language, are semantically confusing, and make
>reading code difficult.

I do not regard them as "kitchen sink" functions at all.  They are
not confusing, they make code easier to read, and (for those who
reserve their fury for _Common_ Lisp) they predate Common Lisp.
I used them in Franz Lisp, for example.  But if you prefer to 
write such operations out in-line each time, go ahead.

I think it is good practice to take useful operations and embody
them in functions.  Just imagine how much worse programs would be
if people didn't do this.

>A language that has a 1000 built-in functions (constructs) is doomed.
>People don't have the cognitive mechanisms to deal with that number
>and variety of mechanisms.

Well, I guess they'll never be able to write large programs, use GNU
Emacs or the X Window System, etc.  Yes, Emacs and X are standard
examples of "too big", and I'd rather Common Lisp were smaller (in
some ways).  But these things are by no means doomed.

>                      The result is that each person uses their
>own personal subset of the language, and a Tower of Babel results.
>Far from being "common", Common Lisp is doomed to be uncommon.

Well, of course people use their own personal subset of the language,
just as, in a smaller language, they write their own personal extensions.
So instead of one Tower of Babel (if you think that's what happens) we
may get hundreds.