Just a reminder I'm doing a presentation that covers all this (almost verbatim!) and more for Guix Days :)
(ie Christine you be stealing my thunder! 😆 🤣 😂) I'm kidding (kinda). it doesn't hurt to have the conversations already rolling and im sure it will mean the session will be extra productive :) So continue forth and steal! On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 03:12 Christine Lemmer-Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote: > I've been appreciating the feedback in this thread about Guile; I'm > starting a new topic name because I think we've deviated from talking > about Guile Hall and more about Guile. > > Some stuff below. > > Chris Vine <vine35792...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 19:19:06 +0700 > > Blake Shaw <bl...@nonconstructivism.com> wrote: > > > >> Vijay Marupudi <vijaymarup...@gatech.edu> writes: > >> > I don't think it's fair to say that using packages in Guile just as > >> > easy/hard as other languages. Python / Javascript make this incredibly > >> > easy, and their ecosystem is evidence for that success. Their package > >> > managers have flaws, but they have benefits too, and those benefits > >> > would be great for Guile. > >> > >> I would just like to tag onto this convo that I agree that its not fair > >> to say that Guile is easy and will quickly bless those who endeavor to > >> learn it with superpowers. My experience w/Racket was very smooth and I > >> got working in it very quickly. I was a contracted to work on a project > in > >> Python a few months ago and without ever studying it I was able to > >> start doing production work in it (ridiculous how intuitive it is, > >> really). Before I started learning Guile I read Edwin Brady's book on > >> Idris and found Idris much easier to get from start to end of small > >> projects I was working on (because there is a well written book on it). > >> > >> While Guile has become my favorite programming language, it took me > >> several months to learn how to navigate & figure out how to navigate the > >> SRFIs, how to plan a program so that I can know what to expect along the > >> way (what features I'll need to implement myself, etc) before I was able > >> to get productive in it beyond the realm of Guix. And I think most would > >> agree that Scheme is a less advanced language than Idris (I did some > >> category theory in school so I have some intuition for the ideas, but > >> still). And to be honest, I still hit plenty of road blocks. > >> > >> There were definitely some times where I was digging around trying to > >> figure out how to do things and came across messages in the archives > >> saying "its so easy you just do [vague hand wavy explanation]". And I > >> found that quite frustrating, like there is an insularity meant to weed > >> out the bad apples. And when this topic popped up on the guix list a few > >> weeks ago some others expressed similar concerns, folks who are doing > >> very impressive work. A programming language should never make > >> programmers feel dumb -- it should make us feel empowered! > > > > Everything is capable of improvement but the guile manual is a manual > > and not I think primarily intended as a language tutorial (although > > Chapter 3 of the manual does have a very cursory introduction to the > > scheme language). If you are looking for a tutorial, I suggest reading > > https://www.scheme.com/tspl4/ . It covers the R6RS flavour, but at the > > tutorial level I don't think the various current standard flavours > > (R5RS, R6RS and R7RS) matter too much. > > > > I would be reluctant to see the manual turned into a tutorial if that > > were to mean abridging any of its current completeness. > > The manual does contain a very brief tutorial, but it's brief... the > Guix cookbook also contains something short. Both seem a bit lacking to > me but they could be starting points. > > Regarding the manual as a manual, I actually personally like the Guile > manual a lot. I think it's very well written. But it's a reference > guide. > > But I do remember finding it overwhelming and confusing initially. I > think a few things could improve the situation, some manual related, > some other things: > > > Guile Reference vs Guile Guide > ============================== > > Personally I think the *best* experience I have ever had in reading > manuals is in Racket. > > Racket has a nice way of handling things: > > - There's a set of initial "short tutorials" that are really to get you > up and running and feel like you "did something cool" fast. This is > great, and it would be nice to have some of these, maybe with > screencast examples. > > - Racket also separates the "Guide" from the "Reference". Well that's > sensible! Guile actually has a very good "reference manual", maybe > what it needs is a *companion* in terms of the "Guile Guide". > > (Note that despite my high praise for Racket's manuals, that's not a > universal impression; I have a friend who has told me several times that > Racket's manuals were hard for her because they seem too aimed at PLT > type folks. I still think highly of them but want to note that.) > > > Module names > ============ > > ice-9 -> guile > -------------- > > I think that ice-9 is a weird namespace for "guile's standard library" > but it's what we have for historical reasons. Still I would have > preferred that namespace simply be "guile", so we have (guile match) and > (guile format) instead of (ice-9 ...). It would be clearer what ice-9 > *is* to have it be called "guile" instead. But maybe it's too late for > that. How much work would it be to do an alias like this? > > > Named SRFIs > ----------- > > If it's possible to do such aliases, I'd also say that making sense of > what SRFI module is what is a real mess for me. (srfi srfi-9) doesn't > tell me what that SRFI *is*. However, if we supported "named" versions > of SRFIs, that would help me. Which of these would be easier to read? > > Heck, maybe I should make a SRFI for common human readable SRFI names. > #mildlyspicytake #maybenotabadidea > > > An example, a comparison > ------------------------ > > Taken all together, imagine if instead of: > > (define-module (my-module) > #:use-module (ice-9 match) > #:use-module (ice-9 format) > #:use-module (srfi srfi-1) > #:use-module (srfi srfi-9) > #:use-module (srfi srfi-37) > #:use-module (srfi srfi-41) > #:use-module (srfi srfi-64)) > > We had: > > (define-module (my-module) > #:use-module (guile match) > #:use-module (guile format) > #:use-module (srfi list-utils) > #:use-module (srfi records) > #:use-module (srfi args-fold) > #:use-module (srfi streams) > #:use-module (srfi tests)) > > Much easier to follow, no? > > > Guile Studio and the picture language! > ====================================== > > I've finally, finally tried out Ricardo Wurmus' Guile Studio, which is > actually quite impressive. It sets up Emacs to be like DrRacket, easy > to pick up and hack for a complete newcomer. Very nice! If we do have > screencasty type things it might be nice to use Guile Studio as the > environment we start showing people in. > > > Wisp > ==== > > I'd like to actually see Guile integrate Wisp as a core language and > think about what it would be like to support it as a recommended > alternate way of writing programs. I think with the new block-level > highlighting that Arne has written, Wisp could be near ready for prime > time. This could mean: > > - Getting wisp actually in Guile's official languages > - Figuring out how to get geiser to be nicely integrated > - Figuring out how to make importing Wisp modules be as easy as > importing parenthetical-lisp ones > > > Anyway, those are my thoughts. This email was longer than I meant or > expected. Maybe it's useful. Thoughts? > > - Christine > >
