Subject: Re: Thoughts and sighs.. From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:49:50 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * "Biep @ http://www.biep.org/" <email@example.com> > But the time when Interlisp was in a contest with MacLisp, when to almost > everybody's amazement Scheme(r) brought the Planner/Conniver line back in > the fold by showing that with lexical scoping Hewitt's actors were > identical to procedures, that time seems gone, and I think too early. You are too puzzling a character for me to want to spend any time on, but just out of curiosity, since you refer to CLtL2 as the reference for Common Lisp, your attitudes and opinions must predate 1995 and not have evolved much since, and by the looks of it, you are still mired in the pre-1990 Lisp world, possibly even pre-1980. Why is that comfortable for you when the rest of the Lisp world really _has_ moved on so much and so far? Why are you pining for an irrelevant past? Or are you trying to prove my point when I say that Scheme is not a Lisp, that the Lisp that "Scheme is a Lisp" refers to is a really, really ancient Lisp that has absolutely no relevance outside of history lessons? > I don't care if a language dies because a successor is objectively > better, but I do care if that kills parts that are, or may be, better > than corresponding parts in that successor. The very idea that anything is "objectively better" is simply ludicrous. I think you need a fundamental attitude readjustment. Quit being a troll. #:Erik -- Travel is a meat thing.