Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!bakul
From: bakul@netcom.com (Bakul Shah)
Subject: Re: Removing READ
Message-ID: <bakulD4FAss.C7H@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <dig-Scheme-7.45@mc.lcs.mit.edu> <9502160422.AA05023@clark.lcs.mit.edu> <hbaker-2202951004460001@192.0.2.1>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 22:36:28 GMT
Lines: 29
Sender: bakul@netcom7.netcom.com

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) writes:

>One look at all of the bletcherous '.xxxrc' files proves this statement
>dreadfully wrong.  The world would be dramatically improved if nearly
>_all_ programs parsed s-expressions for '.xxxrc' programs instead of
>re-inventing the parsing/language wheel for every single init file.

This is an appealing idea but usually .<program>rc style files
use a little language that is better suited *for describing
simple things*.  Scheme/Lisp usurp a number of characters and
that forces one to use a much more verbose syntax.  I find syntax
style such as

<keyword>: <value>

much more pleasing and easier to read/modify.  Where these
.<program>rc files go wrong is in inventing their own syntax
for doing complicated things.  For that Scheme or Self or some
such language would be perfect.  (and no, the idea of using two
languages does not disgust me!).

What would be more interesting is the use of Scheme as a
*communication* language; where programs throw back and forth
s-exprs (instead of sending just data in some arcane &/or
proprietary formats) to communicate with each other.  Perhaps
s-exprs encoded in some sort of a compact/efficient binary
format.

Bakul Shah <bakul@netcom.com>
