Re: Request for feedback on SRFI-126

[Panicz Maciej Godek <godek.maciek@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2275 bytes --]

2015-09-29 22:05 GMT+02:00 Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de>:

> Am Montag, 28. September 2015, 22:02:42 schrieb Panicz Maciej Godek:
> > Even within the Scheme community there appear voices complaining on the
> > Lisp syntax, like SRFI-105, SRFI-110 or SRFI-119.
>
> I wrote SRFI-119, not because I want Scheme to become more like
> Python, but because I want it to *look* more like Python while
> retaining its strengths.
>

If you asked me, I'd say that if people started using that SRFI (or the two
others), then it would be most harmful to the Scheme community, because
that would increase code enthropy and force programmer to make an
irrelevant choice.
It also sacrifices some of the strengths of Scheme, actually, because it
makes the code structure obscure.

The same goal could better be achieved (non-intrusively) by making an easy
to use editor that would allow to display your Scheme code in the way you
prefer, be it Python-style indentation or some fancy LaTeX formatting.

It isn’t necessary to sacrifice the strengths of Scheme to become as
> easy for new programmers as Python. However it does require accepting
> that a large part of the utility of any language lies in its
> libraries: The best language for any job is the one which provides the
> solution off-the-shelf.


Fine. But I don't find it disturbing that this "useful language with tons
of great libraries" is called Racket or Guile, rather than Scheme.

SRFIs could give Scheme such solutions, and
> the flexibility of Scheme would allow making these solutions much more
> elegant than what can be created with Python.
>

I will agree with you if you show me one example of successful deployment
of Guile or Racket. Like, Python has some impressive tools like Django or
Enaml.

But someone has to actually do that: Creating libraries with
> consistent style which provide to the application developer what
> Scheme already provides to the language developer.
>

I agree. But from my experience, in order to make a useful library, it is
best to work on some real applications.

I think it is actually reasonable to think that the power of a programming
language manifests itself in the applications that are written in that
language.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3154 bytes --]