3 ms·
I'll add to your answer that a lot of them aren't production-worthy either. That might be the packaging, lacking a standard library, not integrating with whatev
by nickpsecurity 8y ago
I'll add to your answer that a lot of them aren't production-worthy either. That might be the packaging, lacking a standard library, not integrating with whatever is dominant in that space, no docs on basic usage, and so on. This happens with verification tools in CompSci, too.
So, they need to get a combination of features to whatever is the minimum of usability the target audience expects. I also push for it to integrate well with legacy libraries with no overhead. Scope author is doing that for C libraries. As a side effect, it's a big boost on productivity since people can always lean on whatever libraries are already there.
- dTal 8y agoI was gonna say - I already have a language with the expressivity of Scheme, the convenience of Python, and the performance of C - it's called "Chez Scheme". Why isn't it popular? Because A) the performant implementation was proprietary until relatively recently, and B) it's less "batteries included" and more "that drawer in your house full of batteries, most of which are dead". There's a great language in there, but it lacks the tooling and social structures for popularity.
- nickpsecurity 8y agoRacket is being ported to Chez Scheme. That might solve the batteries included problem at least at the Racket level. However, if you don't like Racket, then I don't know if it will do anything since using Racket's libraries in Chez might be too kludgy to attempt. https://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.html https://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.h... Since you're a Chez fan, I'll also throw in its historical overview in case you missed it. That they had Scheme on 8-bitters really tripped me out. Talented team. https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/hocs.pdf https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/hocs.pdf