Re: Scheme for programmers book

Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Michael Erdmann wrote:
> 
>
> 
>
>
> Okay.  I'm not familiar with FramerD in particular, but if
> it has a simple module system and you can use it, it's
> getting the job done.
> 
>
>
> Probably a good idea.
> 
>
> There've been several.  But I don't use them, so I
> don't know them very well.  I think that something called
> 'Schmooz' does what you want here, but I don't know where
> to get it.
I found this one in the net :-)

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~jaffer/...ge/schmooz.html

.... 
>
>
> They're too elementary; paren-matching is below the level of
> consciousness of a scheme programmer who's used to having the
> editor count parens for him and show him the result by indenting
> properly.  Remember the language uses parens for *EVERYTHING*,
> not just major structure like begin-end in other languages.
I already have made this painfull exprience. Any way i will
enforce the usage of this convention.

> A complicated procedure definition can end with twenty-seven )'s
> that all opened on different lines, and it's silly to spread
> them out one per line.
I thought i can avoid such complex procedures.

>
>
> 
>
>
> More than just one.  There are dozens of completely different
> work cultures that all use scheme.
And i am trying to carve out the shape of at least one
i could apply to my next project.

> 
>
>
> Eh.  Such things exist; there are static type-checking
> programs, etc, if you want them.  I've never found them
> especially useful.
This is interesting, whay? Dis you never encounter any
interface problems after you deployed a SW system? For
example a function receving a string at a place where
you expected an integer?
.... 

>
> I find that errors come out rapidly in testing, but there
> have been several such tools developed.
This is what i am afraid of. Testing og components realy
proves nothing. With scheme a sw system need to be tested
completly after you change any thing, since you realy
can't backtrack the data flow in the system at all.

> Check out HtDP
> and PLT scheme's modules-with-contracts. I think there've
> been a halfdozen or so of these implemented and announced.
Some how i cant find anything using the help desk. But i
will have a look in it.

.... 
>
>
> It's okay.  Doubts are allowed.  Most good ideas come from
> people who start by having doubts.  I'd be interested to
> see the results if people are given a choice between a
> scheme and Ada 95, but that probably doubles your work.

I have the impression that Ada 95 and Scheme are completly
different because they are intended for completly different
application domains.  Trying to prove that one language is
"better" then the other would be a very stupid idea.

Any way, since i am entering the business of wrting
an application which is going to "understand" a piece of
software and i am not going to implement a missile guidance
system i think scheme is definitily the better choice.

Regards
M.Erdmann



>
>                 Bear
>