To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: Gopher thoughts
References: <3C4493E0.D60E4C67@sympatico.ca> <87sn96qpn9.fsf@complete.org>
	<3C45D06E.74FB8A34@sympatico.ca>
	<20020117105111.62c72332.jgoerzen@complete.org>
	<E16RIYp-0000ML-00@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Date: 17 Jan 2002 15:05:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <E16RIYp-0000ML-00@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <871ygoyc8s.fsf@complete.org>
Lines: 27
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


We seem to have a communication problem :-)  I saw Fortran and thought
that you were being facetious and mocking my Python suggestion!  I
wasn't trying to mock the Lispish suggestion.

-- John

MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> > Well, I suggested Python for several reasons:
> >  1. A lot of framework is already done.
> >  2. There are no buffer overflow issues to worry about.
> >  3. It's fast to write such a thing in Python.
> 
> I suggested a Lisp family language (Scheme in my case) for the exact same
> reasons, so I don't quite understand your differential.  Of course, Lisps
> also provide you with hygenic macros and other powerful tools which I think
> are still absent from current common Pythons(?) but these may not be useful
> in this case.
> 
> Do we really care?  Just give us more interesting gopher servers powering
> more interesting gopher sites ;-)
> -- 
> MJR
> 

-- 
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>    GPG: 0x8A1D9A1F    www.complete.org