Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!parsely!percy!data!kend
From: kend@data.UUCP (Ken Dickey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: To Lisp, or not to Lisp; that is the question.
Message-ID: <458@data.UUCP>
Date: 13 Mar 91 20:45:12 GMT
References: <9103120750.AA00865@kuwait>
Organization: Microcosm, Beaverton, OR
Lines: 49

Let me attempt a clarification...

jonl%kuwait@lucid.COM (Jon L White) writes:

>... Is the "runtime library" merely
>an environmental issue?  I would say no; and no good purpose can be 
>served by excluding these items from a standardization process simply 
>because they fall outside a "hard core" kernel language definition.

I agree.  The question is how to go about it (see below).


>Recall Dalton's concern that classifying too many important parts
>of a language/world as environment drastically reduces portability.

I don't see that "the classification" (making distinctions) reduces
portability.  It is the lack of standards that reduces portability!  I
have been taking a "constructive" view in trying to separate standards
for "language", "runtime system library", "development system", etc.,
*all* of which are important. 

My motivation for making such distinctions is that I want to see
standards arise just so that I can write portable Scheme code in
industrial environments.  At the same time I am sensitive to
experimental/research implementors.  Thus when the question is asked
"What is Scheme?", or "What something can be called `Scheme'?"  I
would like a reasonably low entry fee (level 0).  I certainly want to
be able to add new data types (e.g. Windows) to Scheme by augmenting
the runtime library--I don't feel that this changes the "language".
However, when I want to write portable Scheme code in industry, I want
to use an implementation which conforms to "the portable development
standard" and guarentees base-line functionality and interfaces (level
5?).

By making the distinctions, I think that we can have "portable
language", "portable runtime", and "portable development services"
while still being able let people experimenting with small or "rad"
implementations be able to call something `Scheme'--and have that mean
something. 


>P.S. Ken's message referred to me as "Jon"; my full name is John L. White,
>     but everyone refers to me as JonL (pronounced "John-ell"). 

My apologies, JonL!


-Ken					kend@data.uucp
	[People sometimes call me "Kend"---^]