Re: [tlug] "Go Considered Harmful"

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull.stephen.fw@example.com>]

Josh Glover writes:

 > > And most Lisp dialects (Scheme being a notable exception) have a
 > > lot of baggage that seems to me not really to justify its weight,
 > > such as the famous `DO` and, arguably, separate namespaces for
 > > function variables and non-function variables.

Unfortunately, Emacs (ab)uses this heavily.  It's very frequent to see
a function and a variable with the same name.

 > I'm a Scheme / LISP-1 person all the way, so I'm with you here. :)

Unfortunately Scheme doesn't have the integration with other packages
that Common Lisp (or even Emacs Lisp) does.  It's definitely much
cleaner as a language, and it's really kind of embarrassing that R and
Sawfish went and invented their own Lisps (based on Emacs Lisp in the
case of Sawfish ... SMDH) instead of picking a Scheme and running on it.

 > > I'd expected Steve to come in on the Lisp side of things, but it
 > appears he > may have gone to the Dark Side of "ALGOL-like or
 > nothing." :-)
 > 
 > Maybe Steve has lost his edge... ;-P

With all the bad karma in this message already, you may want to take
some care joking about "edges."  I also still know how to make a
point.