From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Panicz Maciej Godek Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Request for feedback on SRFI-126 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 01:02:50 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87zj08t5w1.fsf@T420.taylan> <87mvw7t100.fsf@T420.taylan> <1555352.V50ucWGNsT@fluss> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e016817e62eee9f0520ead0a0 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443648681 27952 80.91.229.3 (30 Sep 2015 21:31:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "guile-user@gnu.org" , guile-devel To: Arne Babenhauserheide Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 30 23:31:21 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhOy4-0000Aj-Je for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:31:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33590 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhOy3-00084s-TP for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:31:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44345) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh3vD-0005kl-Mj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:02:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh3vC-0005Zu-JN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:02:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]:37658) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh3v9-0005Yh-RW; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Original-Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so37004755wic.0; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rY1XHxx9eCgu7pu0oZslmrNMmH6pumIXN+1ag2Z/pPc=; b=oxutOFL7HQRh2xFpyKrohKEsqXU+tL+YIGVELd7wqZUNUSLXJLEM/V8v07PdnXhbJG tJAhjp0Zso3T0s1Ewdw16aL70lligMYXqvLxlJD03y38sJAEMcUKFmrxk5GfSxkngZeO zJwkH0rspdE051ZQnUahITAFZfhSayr2XCkhaM0rCmyPPiIrEnx6myF6g/p8FFkgsd7R 969Ys8x8dPl8ftL1amvSPIvOTu7DWyhKdOB6aiee3FmZNZTcZOe1LefWc+9Bws+TiS+r bFLgBiwyHaREDoM59HsFZVyqY2/qMDgnAjC0h1OH4TuAXa8lNdkCDbtow2cnqkJgDOwU FEOw== X-Received: by 10.194.246.199 with SMTP id xy7mr471564wjc.61.1443567770723; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.194.34.35 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1555352.V50ucWGNsT@fluss> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:17875 gmane.lisp.guile.user:12057 Archived-At: --089e016817e62eee9f0520ead0a0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2015-09-29 22:05 GMT+02:00 Arne Babenhauserheide : > 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=E2=80=99t necessary to sacrifice the strengths of Scheme to become a= s > 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. --089e016817e62eee9f0520ead0a0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2015= -09-29 22:05 GMT+02:00 Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de>:
Am Montag, 28. Septem= ber 2015, 22:02:42 schrieb Panicz Maciej Godek:
> Even within the Scheme community there appear voices complaining on th= e
> 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.
=C2=A0
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.<= /div>
It also sacrifices some of the strengths of Scheme, actually, bec= ause it makes the code structure obscure.

The same= goal could better be achieved (non-intrusively) by making an easy to use e= ditor that would allow to display your Scheme code in the way you prefer, b= e it Python-style indentation or some fancy LaTeX formatting.
It isn=E2=80=99t necessary to sacrifice the strengths of Scheme to become a= s
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= 9;t find it disturbing that this "useful language with tons of great l= ibraries" is called Racket or Guile, rather than Scheme.
SRFIs could give Scheme such solution= s, 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 deplo= yment of Guile or Racket. Like, Python has some impressive tools like Djang= o 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 libr= ary, 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 lan= guage.

--089e016817e62eee9f0520ead0a0--