Aubrey Jaffer scripsit:
> I have 70,000 lines of mathematical, scientific, engineering,
> database, and scripting software written in (R4RS) Scheme showing that
> this small number of rules is "flexible enough to support most of the
> major programming paradigms in use today."
Lapack, which is just a small part of Netlib, is more than ten times as
large as SLIB, demonstrating even more conclusively that an even smaller
number of Fortran 66 constructs suffice.
> The significance of this achievement by R4RS is not widely
> appreciated. Procedure are sufficient to create nearly any new
> features. Even new control features do not require new syntax.
No syntax other than (DEFINE foo ...), LAMBDA, SET!, IF, and QUOTE
is actually *required* at all. Why not confine yourself to those?
> The effect of adding macros to Scheme has been the proliferation of
> mutually incomprehensible language dialects.
The effect of underspecifying Scheme has been the proliferation of
mutually *incompatible* language dialects. This is just as true of RRRS,
R3RS, and R5RS as of R4RS.
In addition, it is no accident that every Scheme implementation beginning
with Steele's has provided macros.
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
[P]olice in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting
on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV
cop shows. When it's explained to them that they are in a different country,
where those rights do not exist, they become outraged. --Neal Stephenson
Received on Mon Aug 13 2007 - 23:04:16 UTC