Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:
> I have typed this message in emacs.

Same for me, but getting people to use Emacs is harder. It might not
*be* that complicated, but it *feels* different.

> In my opinion one of the worst problems with Scheme is the Schemers:
> Scheme lovers are often far too enthusiastic with defining new, esoteric
> syntax instead of solving practical problems.
>
> Then, there's GOOPS, which in my opinion is simply an unnatural way to
> go about object-oriented programming. It does violence both to ordinary
> OO way of thinking and classic Lisp idioms.

GOOPS works pretty well for me where I use it (for dispatch by
type). Could you clarify your criticism: Do you think it is bad or is it
just different?

> Continuations and multiple values are obstacles instead of enablers.

I think multiple values are nice. But they are not well-integrated (I
have to import something to use them). Why do you think them enablers?

Why do you think that continuations are an obstacle (do you mean general
continuations or do you mean prompts)?

> BTW, Python seems to be suffering from quite many self-inflicted wounds:
> Python2/Python3 incompatibility,

Py2 vs. Py3 really hurts, yes.

It still really hurts and will likely hurt for the next 10 years. I
think that should be a lesson for all other language-implementors: Once
you start to become popular, you cannot do any backwards-incompatible
changes without endangering your position. Once you start to get
traction, you have to stick to your horse.

Many other wounds I do not see as much:

> asyncio, type annotation,

type annotations should provide nice ways to optimize for pypy and other
more optimizing Python implementations.

> decorators,

Decorators are really cool to use:

@with_progress
def something():
    time.sleep(10)

That’s almost like

(with-progress
  (define (something)
          (sleep 10)))

But decorators are actually definition time, so they bring the tower of
meta-levels to Python …

> dunder jungle,

What’s that?

> meta-object programming,

That’s needed to make some things elegant. "Different 20%"-rule again.

> Unicode illusion. (Guile has fallen into that last trap as well,
> unfortunately.)

I’m using Python and Guile for physics and math (to some degree), and
having good Unicode-support is great for that. What’s your practical
criticism here?

> In its eagerness to please everyone, Python might well
> be jumping the shark.
>
> There's one thing Python has over Guile, still: Python's system call
> support is outstanding. For example, I managed to implement a full-blown
> shell using Python. That was the first time I ever ran into
> terminal-related system calls, and Python had them all.

Which ones are missing in Guile?

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