Re: Avoid Lisp and Scheme in the same list

[Tino Calancha]

> Certainly.  It is very common among lispers to refer to lisp-2
> implementations (notably Common Lisp and derivations) as "lisp", opposed
> to scheme, which is a lisp-1.
The potential readers of this document don't restrict to lispers, it's
much wider.  The document should be clear for the maximum number of
readers.  It should be consistent throughout all sections as
well.

> Scheme and Lisp are different enough that it is useful to explicitly
> list them as such.  Just like it would make sense to list C and C++ as
> seperate entities, or C and Objective C.
Sorry, but I disagree.

I) For the local consistency of the document:

Previous paragraph add extra information about
using C++ (avoid heavy use of templates); this clarification
is important and makes a difference with the case of "Lisp, Scheme".

One reader may think:
"If C is a valid choice for high speed, C++ should be also a valid one,
no needs to mention it".
The clarification above about heavy use the templates justify the
inclusion of C++.

In the case of "Lisp, Scheme" the text lack of a logical reason to include
these 2 words together.
The same user may think:
"If Lisp is a valid choice, Scheme should be also a valid one
no need to mention it".

II) Furthermore, for the global consistency of the document.
In section "GNOME and Guile" it is written:
"which implements the
language Scheme (an especially clean and simple dialect of Lisp)."

This sentence reinforce my argument that "Lisp, Scheme" is redundant.
Scheme is a language, yes, and it is also a dialect of Lisp as mentiond
here.

If you are listing good language choices for write programs, and Lisp
is a suitable one, then Scheme is suitable choice as well _automatically_.

Adding Scheme in the list after Lisp, without mention some restrictions
to Scheme use (as it was done with C++) it seems unecessary: it breaks
the logical structure underneath of that listing.

Another related topic but that i care less, it is the repetion of Java.
Java is already introduced as a valid choice when you need high speed,
but it is mentioned, "if you compile it".
I found unnecessary to include later again Java in the list when you
are not targeting in high efficiency: it should be obvious for the reader.
Instead of repeat Java maybe you could mention another program
(i.e., JavaScript).


--
Tino