This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Clayton Weaver writes: > The difficulty is not functional programming, it is lack of visual > cues for variable binding scope and control flow. cues in the code? like indentation? or cues in the execution? like memory-usage or stack visualization? or cues in the design phase? like so-called wizards? > How scheme compares to other existing languages is not the issue. > The differences between functional, imperative, and object-oriented > programming where they exist are not the primary obstacle to > deployment of scheme. > > Let's use a different analogy and see if the point becomes clear: > > It's ten years ago, and you're flying around in this Huey (huge > helicopter), getting big jobs done (using common lisp). You decide > that having something that worked more or less the same way > but was much smaller and more nimble would certainly be handy > for some of the work that you need to do. > > So you design this small, fast, nimble helicopter, and you call it > scheme. How likely is it that this new helicopter is going to become > a useful daily commuter vehicle? > > "Well, we weren't design a 4-seater subcompact." Exactly. why commute? computer usage is migrating towards everything being a server (X, hurd, gush, gamora, etc). one just needs a net to throw into the bit stream. something like: "hey AI, simulate yourself doing..." thi