email@example.com.NO-SPAM (Scott Schwartz) writes:
> The notion he's expressing has proved itself time and
> again, particularly in comparison to the sort of inefficient,
> monolithic systems that lisp implementors seem to prefer.
Perhaps this is true of Lisp. There certainly are middling-to-small
Scheme implementations. SIOD has looked tiny (to the casual glance);
Rob Warnock has sung its praises many times, especially as a quick
start-up low-weight platform.
You seem to be arguing a structural notion (whether or not there are
such things as distinct "scripting languages") by citing specific
implementations that didn't see or chose not to occupy a niche. I
don't agree with this line of reasoning.
Surely I've misunderstood you?