From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Neil Jerram" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: guile history: your input needed! Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:04:03 +0000 Message-ID: <49dd78620811230204m7f03e2afqa3ded5f0cb6b2179@mail.gmail.com> References: <49dd78620811201634o5635f191w9de3ce26fc79ec71@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227434775 19708 80.91.229.12 (23 Nov 2008 10:06:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user To: "Andy Wingo" Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 23 11:07:20 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L4Bs7-0007Zy-Iv for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:07:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51488 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L4Bqy-0003g5-5m for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:06:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L4Bp1-0002gE-Ly for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:04:07 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L4Boz-0002ex-M2 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:04:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50883 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L4Boz-0002ep-E1 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:04:05 -0500 Original-Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.250]:10916) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L4Boy-0005CR-V7 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:04:05 -0500 Original-Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so1757871rvb.6 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:04:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=U38cGg7HJAthR9z4BX5ze9dPP+Xm3Idkj+zfTZ+vdUY=; b=X9PrFrmRTcTE8MkDzDNcAbV/jZcwXBzcvoRiSXts7eeyqrVrzzC/VlTAEdgiDrynCy 4xkj2vz6yC4GgPRiheSdK5R1c23a7BDARWt12vudeeo/cP8cQPrqG2kEVnrnPKzv6qi0 Nop8NQAmhi7AT12dHnzk4C40CGo4AiPvxkiTo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=CpZv3Uewp416b1fmIL1rZQE72JMPuQyuPkqNGKAKLZIeXFYL+bBAF1Ccdm07ZAkH2z B8LtdY1calQ4RmPwB2XR8giGg/dd4gqRem8f+vp7U0iqxEZOp7IVIHpWtgTM5JOL8RDV W1gkrEie1X4sVY8AbJGx8NmJKivNFkRDsHWuQ= Original-Received: by 10.141.171.6 with SMTP id y6mr1278119rvo.1.1227434643941; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:04:03 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.140.199.14 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:04:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6962 Archived-At: 2008/11/21 Andy Wingo : > > 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