This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list for the guile project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Jay Glascoe <email@example.com> writes: > On 11 Dec 1998, Greg Harvey wrote: > > > Greg Harvey <Greg.Harvey@thezone.net> writes: > > > > > <rant> > > > > > > It isn't a mindset that I can really understand: among useful > > > > Oops, should've been can't. > > I don't think this applies. If you want a small cool language, try Lua. > If you want a small general purpose programming language... well, rNrs > Scheme is about as small as they come (of course you'd go nuts writing all > the "little things" needed for everyday programming. silly, you'd wind > up with something like Guile anyway ;) > <more ranting ;)> True, but what I was raving (emphesis on raving ;) about is the attitude that someone would use a big language (or a language with a large number of libraries, like c), but yet find the size of guile (or cl) too big. I don't think that, for the most part, anyone really wants a ``small'' language, just the appearance of small. If guile itself looks like a small, r5rs scheme interpreter, nobody would even mention it, but most every program would start with a bunch of (use-module lotsa-added-stuff) ;) Certainly, there are places where you do want small (it would defeat the purpose of trying to get a student to write a function to sort a list, if they just do (sort list) :), but ``really small'' just means a lot of reinventing, and the bugs that go with it. </more ranting> Anyhow, it's definately not, like, consequential and stuff. The direction of guile has been chosen, and as long as it doesn't make life too annoying for kitchen sink types (like me ;), I'll be quite happy. > JimB: how about "Cindy Crawford will be all over you if you use guile > and drink GNU beer?" ;) Hey, I wrote that! :) -- Greg, it's probably not the best way to stick little bits in my sig, tho ;)