Arne Babenhauserheide writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 09:58:32 schrieb Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı
> /Kammer:
>> Exactly, I agree. It should be noted though that some things can be
>> implemented purely as portable libraries, so there needn't be a Request
>> For Implementations to do it, w
Arne Babenhauserheide :
> Making Scheme as usable as Python requires finding an elegance which
> fits Scheme and allows creating applications at least as easily as
> with Python — but not necessarily in the same style.
The main thing is to keep the S expressions' data/code duality. Python
doesn't
2015-10-01 0:16 GMT+02:00 Arne Babenhauserheide :
> Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 08:39:44 schrieb Panicz Maciej Godek:
> > > > others), then it would be most harmful to the Scheme community,
> because
> > > > that would increase code enthropy and force programmer to make an
> > > > irrelevant
Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 08:39:44 schrieb Panicz Maciej Godek:
> > > 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’s no more irrelevant than the choice betwe
Mark H Weaver writes:
> taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>
>> I've made pretty fine experiences with R7RS-small so far[0][1][2][3],
>> and after seeing people's disdain towards R7RS-large's direction and
>> agreeing with them (although I wouldn't trust my own judgm
Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 09:58:32 schrieb Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı /Kammer:
> Exactly, I agree. It should be noted though that some things can be
> implemented purely as portable libraries, so there needn't be a Request
> For Implementations to do it, whereas some other things, which I call
>
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> I've made pretty fine experiences with R7RS-small so far[0][1][2][3],
> and after seeing people's disdain towards R7RS-large's direction and
> agreeing with them (although I wouldn't trust my own judgment alone),
> I've decided to
2015-09-30 1:44 GMT+02:00 Arne Babenhauserheide :
> Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 01:02:50 schrieb Panicz Maciej Godek:
> > 2015-09-29 22:05 GMT+02:00 Arne Babenhauserheide :
> > > I wrote SRFI-119, not because I want Scheme to become more like
> > > Python, but because I want it to *look* more
Arne Babenhauserheide writes:
> [...] The best language for any job is the one which provides the
> solution off-the-shelf. 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.
>
> But
Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 01:02:50 schrieb Panicz Maciej Godek:
> 2015-09-29 22:05 GMT+02:00 Arne Babenhauserheide :
> > 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 a
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 Schem
Am Sonntag, 27. September 2015, 21:00:46 schrieb Panicz Maciej Godek:
> You wrote there, among others, that "with a little more work, standard
> Scheme might actually become a language essentially as usable as Python and
> the like".
>
> If you're looking for a language that is "as usable as Pytho
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*
2015-09-28 10:13 GMT+02:00 Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer <
taylanbayi...@gmail.com>:
> Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
> >
> > Maybe you should explain why there are so many implementations of
> > Scheme in the first place? (That isn't the case for Python, Java or
> > Perl)
>
> Because it's too easy t
Christopher Allan Webber writes:
> Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer writes:
>
>> I will probably work on a delimited continuations SRFI, heavily inspired
>> by Guile's call-with-prompt, since I find it *immensely* more easy to
>> grok than shift/reset and prompt/control because those mingle together
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer writes:
> I will probably work on a delimited continuations SRFI, heavily inspired
> by Guile's call-with-prompt, since I find it *immensely* more easy to
> grok than shift/reset and prompt/control because those mingle together
> the "stack slice" and the "handler" cod
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer"):
> So we are back to square one: anyone who wants to use Scheme for
> something real needs to pick a specific implementation,
Which is true for other programming languages as well: C, C++, Python,
..
For me, in practice, C/C++ is gcc, Pyth
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer"):
>
>> So we are back to square one: anyone who wants to use Scheme for
>> something real needs to pick a specific implementation,
>
> Which is true for other programming languages as well: C, C++, Python,
> ..
>
> F
Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
> Even more broadly than the summaries I already gave, I could say:
> I would like us to reach a state where one can think "I need to
> write application X? Let's do it in Scheme since it's such a neat
> language," and then proceed to install standard S
>
>
> > I've made pretty fine experiences with R7RS-small so far[0][1][2]
> > [3], and after seeing people's disdain towards R7RS-large's
> > direction and agreeing with them (although I wouldn't trust my own
> > judgment alone), I've decided to try pushing R7RS-large in a
> > s
Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
> Hi,
> while I have nothing to say regarding the details of your SRFI, I find
> some of your motivations questionable, and therefore I decided to
> write this reply. Forgive the somewhat "negative" tone of this e-mail,
> despite my intentions being positive.
Hi, no p
Hi,
while I have nothing to say regarding the details of your SRFI, I find some
of your motivations questionable, and therefore I decided to write this
reply. Forgive the somewhat "negative" tone of this e-mail, despite my
intentions being positive.
> I've made pretty fine experiences with R7RS-s
22 matches
Mail list logo
