3 ms·
> Scheme is another Blub: a Scheme user looks at Common Lisp and thinks, 'hey, I don't need generic functions; I don't need packages; I don't want separate name
by rekado 8y ago
> Scheme is another Blub: a Scheme user looks at Common Lisp and thinks, 'hey, I don't need generic functions; I don't need packages; I don't want separate namespaces for separate things; I don't want to extend my reader.' Meanwhile someone who's built large systems in both Lisp & Scheme realises how glad he is to have those things.
I find this list a little funny, because we do have generic functions, packages, and the ability to extend the reader. In Guix we use reader extensions for G-expressions, for example.
I grant you the separate namespaces thing, because, well, we really don't want to have a separate namespace for variables and procedures :)
- zeveb 8y ago> I find this list a little funny, because we do have generic functions, packages, and the ability to extend the reader. But those are all non-standard, right? At least, I quickly skimmed through R7RS & don't see them in there. So they're either Guile-specific extensions, or your project implemented them, or they are a third-party library which has not undergone the same scrutiny as the standard itself. FWIW, I find that having many namespaces (not just two!) rather than one is conducive to good program design.
- kazinator 8y ago"I understand and do want all these things, but don't need them coming from an ANSI/ISO standard" is substantially different from the Blub Paradox.