Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!demos!pluscom!usenet
From: moroz@inist.ru (Oleg Moroz)
Subject: Re: Common LISP: The Next Generation
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
Sender: usenet@news.rinet.ru (Backup pseudo-user)
Nntp-Posting-Host: inist.cronyx.ru
Organization: A/O Plus & Cronyx Ltd. Internet Node
Message-ID: <322f7263.3124963@news-win.rinet.ru>
References: <sjpw4hbzvo.fsf@alfresco.usask.ca> <3050214712631064@arcana.naggum.no> <504oa0$1b2@zeppelin.convex.com> <ey3loetgpmj.fsf@staffa.aiai.ed.ac.uk> <50hu9u$kcd@zeppelin.convex.com> <841848457snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 00:49:00 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:22551 comp.lang.scheme:16731

On Wed, 04 Sep 96 14:47:37 GMT, Cyber Surfer <cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Curiously, the MS proposal for VRML scripting was ActiveVRML,
>a language not entirely dissimilar to ML. Too bad everybody
>hated it, and while the popular candidate was something that
>used Java. Which would be more friendly to people relatively
>new to programming? I think MS got it right, but their pages
>for ActiveVRML have either moved or been "revoked".

Too bad they had given up on it... I liked it from the first sight. Some VRML
2.0 gurus I talked with about ActiveVRML some time ago told me that there were
two main reasons against AVRML. First, the language lacked some non-obvious but
really needed features and there was no easy  way to add them (I don't remember
which ones for now) and MW did not have any trouble with these. Second, AVRML
was all behaviour and some shapes, while the committee preferred an evolutional
road and made the shapes the emphasis of VRML2 while leaving behaviour for the
domain of external scripting languages.

Oleg
