Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:4559 comp.lang.scheme:2066
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!think.com!linus!linus!mingus!john
From: john@mingus.mitre.org (John D. Burger)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Scheme as an Algol-like, not Lisp-like, language
Message-ID: <1991Mar5.221647.22740@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 5 Mar 91 22:16:47 GMT
Sender: news@linus.mitre.org (News Service)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: mingus.mitre.org

jaffer@gerber.ai.mit.edu (Aubrey Jaffer) writes:

>The radical suggestion I made was prompted by the realization that
>Scheme's 16 special forms seem to cover almost all the ways I write
>code (control structure).  No one seems to share that observation with
>me.

But one of the beauties of Lisp is the ability able to embed your own
language in it.  Do you object to defining DEF-type macros, e.g.

  (DEFPREDICATE AUTOMOBILE
    (ISA MOBILE-OBJECT MACHINE)
    (HAS-PARTS DOOR TIRE ENGINE))

What if I define a new data structure, and then want to write new
control constructs for it, e.g. streams:

  (DO-STREAM (ELEMENT MY-STREAM)
    (PRINT ELEMENT))

Are you seriously suggesting that doing these with "primitives" is
more readable, or indeed better in any way at all?
--
John Burger                                               john@mitre.org

"You ever think about .signature files? I mean, do we really need them?"
  - alt.andy.rooney