🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <834@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

   Path: esosun!seismo!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!quintus!ok
   From: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
   Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
   Date: 29 Mar 88 11:54:38 GMT
   Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
   Lines: 47

   I have been sending messages which are rather hard on BSI Prolog syntax.
   Somewhat belatedly, I'd like to try to put these comments in perspective.
   . . .
   As an example, consider Common Lisp.  The native syntax of Common Lisp is
   differs in a great many details from the syntax of Interlisp, yet on the
   Xerox Lisp Machines the two dialects use the same reader, with the differences
   being concentrated in read-tables.  I like Common Lisp syntax, someone else
   here likes Interlisp, and we can both use the syntax of our choice.  (Even 
   for the same files...)

Common Lisp argues against your vantage as well as for it.  In order to maintain
strong backward compatibility (mostly MacLisp derivatives) Common Lisp
compromised the syntax and semantics of the language significantly.  Consequently,
many Lispers ruefully think "what might have been" if the Common Lisp 
committee has paid less attention to backward compatibility and more attention
to syntactic elegance.  If more of the lessons learned from Scheme were incorporated 
(cf. EuLisp) the Lisp community would be much better off.

There are obvious tradeoffs between backward compatibility and syntactic
elegance.  However, I don't think that the conversion problems you fear 
being caused by the BSI standard are especially scary.  Automatic conversion
programs are no panacea, but _can_ (in moderation) be useful here.

With the perspective of several years it seems clear that Common Lisp
overemphasized compatibility at the cost of elegance.  BSI seems to be
doing a much better job of this.

-- Cris Kobryn