Re: (problem? 'guile)

[MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>]

Shriram:
> The problems with process are, simply, that I don't think the Open
> Source model is a good way to design a *language*. [...]

Shriram, you are confusing many issues here.  First of all, I don't think
that Guile's FSF backers would be overjoyed to be described just as "Open
Source", as that term has been corrupted until it is largely meaningless. 
Let's call a spade a spade and free software free, yes?

Secondly, there is no "Open Source model" (or "Free Software model") for
development.  As PLT shows, there are many models possible and the
bazaar and cathedral are but two of the possibilities.  You can also see
multiple options at work inside the FSF.

For example, Emacs is arguably the most cathedral-like of them all, but I
don't use that to pass judgement on the "cathedral model" process of design.

I've forgotten where this was going.  Sorry.

> [...] I've seen Guile code that was so full of side-effects
> (gratuitous ones, I might add) that you might as well be programming
> in a first-order imperative language -- so why bother with Guile?
[example]

Can you give names on that example, please?  It's hard to judge from what
you said whether you actually were talking to Someone With Power or just
Today's Tinpot General.

I've had similar problems when looking at the GUI libraries that ship with
current free schemes.  They're quite depressing to work with, really.

> Quite simply, I don't want a language with that kind of designer.

I'm still trying to figure out if I can live with a language that has
designers/implementers who are irritatingly arrogant, but also as frequently
right.
-- 
MJR