It seems that the Schemes and Lisps of this world have never really go their act together. I'm watching the SICP videos, and they really turn you on to just how powerful something like Scheme is. I myself am not a Schemer or Lisper, it just ends up too painful.
I saw something on the internet about Scheme. They had resisted specifying package management because they wanted it to be experimental, and didn't want to tie it down to a poor implementation. The result being that the Schemes are fragmented. Each Scheme seems to do it's one thing well, but don't seem to be jacks of all trades. I mean, for crying out loud, python/java/ruby etc. have sorted out the package situation adequately enough. Anyway, that' my rant over with for a bit ;) I'm adding in a FICL bootstrap script - I now need to work out where the etc directory is installed to (and don't say /etc, that's far far too straightforward ;) ). ----- Original Message ---- From: Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 24 August, 2007 1:25:24 PM Subject: Re: [CinCVS] Some of my thoughts on scripting On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Mark Carter wrote: > It would be nice to use a really high programming language, but we live > in a C world. I totally agree on this point. But that same language must beable to be compiled into binaries. Because it is not a C world, it is a x86(-64) instructionset world. (Although this message is typed on a PPC32) I guess there is a lot of potential for any 5GL programming language or even UML based designs, but people must make compilers for them, not interpreters. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
