Alejandro Sanchez <hiphish@openmailbox.org> writes:

> If I may add my two cents as a Scheme layman: the question is not so much about making Guile more popular, but about making Scheme itself more popular.
>
> One big reason for Python’s popularity is something I haven’t seen
> mentioned in this thread so far: if you know pseudocode you basically
> know Python already. Of course this is hyperbolic, there are a lot of
> finer details to Python, but the superficial simplicity of Python
> makes you think you already know the language and that you can get
> started right away. By the time you encounter the more arcane aspects
> of Python you have already invested enough time into it that you will
> put up with learning something new.

This is basically what wisp¹ is intended to address:

define : hello who
    format #t "Hello ~a!\n" who

hello "World"

And it’s still full scheme. Just looking like pseudocode.

I documented that in py2guile: http://draketo.de/py2guile

¹: http://draketo.de/english/wisp

> I think someone here mentioned the lack of a proper Scheme IDE, other
> than Dr. Racket for Racket. I don’t use IDEs anymore, but I can see
> how that can be a problem for other people who only want to do
> intermediate scripting rather than write entire applications.

I also see lots of people at work using Python IDEs, which all bring
their own problems but provide the kind of information I get from the
commandline.

Just having a geiser setup for Emacs properly documented — or maybe an
Emacs customized for Scheme development — would help a lot, I think.

"This is our canonical interface for writing Scheme" ← That is what
people need to be able to find.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken