Re: guile history: your input needed!

["Neil Jerram" <neiljerram@googlemail.com>]

2008/11/21 Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>:
>
> I think that the problem that history addresses is the definition of
> Guile -- that is, who and what we are.

Hi Andy,

Following on from my response to Seb...  I think this is the key
point, the definition of Guile today.  If, from this work, we can get
a statement of that that is clear and powerful enough to balance the
history, I will be happy with that.

(In fact, now that I've written that last sentence, it's clear that
the lack of a strong current statement is the problem, not the
presence or absence of history.)

There have been attempts to clearly pin down Guile's point, and some
of the results can be seen on the web pages [1] and in the manual [2].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html#whatisit
[2] http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/What-is-Guile_003f.html#What-is-Guile_003f

But for me, somehow, none of these quite hit the mark.  It could be
the writing style, or the content; I'm not sure.

> If you talk to other schemers, or search on the internet, the defintion
> of Guile for them comes from moments in our past (the Tcl wars etc etc),
> and some early incompatibilities with R4 (and later, R5).
>
> I think that to describe the present without acknowledging the past is
> to give license to those with other interests, or with outdated
> knowledge, to define Guile's past as they choose, and thus in a way to
> constrain its future.

I think that's a bit topsy-turvy.  If we had a clearer statement of
the present, it would not matter so much how people describe the past.

>> (And I'm especially bored of hearing about the old tcl war yet again...)
>
> It would be wierd not to mention them, IMO. There's no need to dwell too
> long, but the need for powerful languages that can bridge the gap
> between extension of existing applications and a more fully dynamic
> programming environment is still with us today.

Now that last sentence has me excited!  Did RMS write that, or is it
vintage Wingo 2008?  Actually I'm not sure it matters; it works for
the present, and if it actually comes from the past, so much the
better.

Also, I suspect that your writing style, and knowledge of dynamic
languages broader than just Guile/Scheme, will mean that you can write
this better than anyone else.

I'm looking forward to it now; please consider my objection removed.

Regards,
      Neil