Ilias Lazaridis <ilias / lazaridis.com> writes:

> Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>> Ilias Lazaridis <ilias / lazaridis.com> writes:
>>>>>The essence of the whole thread (and the SCHEME evaluations) was this one:
>>>>>
>>>>>"
>>>>>estimation: disrespect.
>>>>>
>>>>>scheme => shame !
>>>>>
>>>>>provisional rejected.
>>>>>"
>>>>
>>>>This is so ridiculous, I don't even know what to say.
>>>
>>>Please explain.
>>>
>>>This here is still valid:
>>>
>>>"
>>>maybe a scheme lover can serve me with some *concrete* facts that can
>>>change my mind!
>>>"
>> If you dismiss a language due the lack of referencing an influent
>> person 
>
> John McCarthy: inventor/discoverer of LISP (and thus the "Grand
> Father" of all LISP dialects).

I know that very well.

Also, without Adam and Eve, Lisp (and therefore Scheme) would not
have been possible... and they aren't mentioned either!

>> in the standard, you'll never get anywere.
>
> I understand your thought, which is false.

AFAICS, you *are* not getting anywere.  If you spend all the time
trolling around in various newsgroups for the last years writing code
(or your own language, that does what *you* want and aknowledges
whoever you want in it's reference), ... what do you think you were
now?

> I sense that I'm close to my goal.

Yeah, you already pissed off a lot of people on this list.

> -
> Respect to the Roots.
> -
>
> Neither the LISP-to-SCHEME-transformers (Guy Lewis Steele Jr. and Gerald
> Jay Sussman) nor the SCHEME community have this.

You must be joking.  Did you ever read the Lambda papers?

> SCHEME [the language & the surrounding systems] cannot procude the
> next generation software systems.

Then come up with something better.

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org