3 ms·

Does anyone else think that PLT Scheme dialect is moving closer to Common Lisp?

jimbokun 18y ago
Stone soup. Quick summary: A stranger walks into a village, puts a pot on a fire, fills it with water and, in full view of the villagers, drops in a single stone. Curious, the villagers ask what he's up to. "Making stone soup." "You can make soup from a stone?" "Yes, it's very good. However, it's even better with a little bit of..." You see how this is going to go. One by one, the villagers bring some little thing or other to add to the stone soup, and in the end they all enjoy some, shocked at how good a soup made from a stone can taste. The relevance: The whole point of Scheme is to be a minimalist programming language. However, then someone says, "Yes, I love this minimal programming language. Very elegant. However, if you just had support for hash tables..." After several iterations of this, you have users of this programming language saying "Amazing how much you can do with this minimalist programming language..."
- j2d2 18y ago
  I was under the impression scheme is still minimalist and that plt/scheme is as your describe. The story is nice, but I think it's incorrectly applied.
- euccastro 18y ago
  Good regurgitation of Agile/Pragmatic/... folklore. Pity it has no base in reality. Most Scheme implementations have always had functionality well beyond the standard, and many Scheme users don't see a contradiction in having a minimalistic language standard[1] and rich implementations. [1] I'm talking about R5RS here, but the story doesn't apply to R6RS either. That was never intended to be a small incremental step, as your fable suggests. P.S.: BTW, I think the metaphor you meant was the boiled frog, rather than stone soup.
- brlewis 18y ago
  No, it doesn't happen that way. It's SICP that amazes people at what can be done with a minimalist programming language. People who use a Scheme implementation with lots of additions have no illusions of minimalism.
  - schtog 18y ago
    im watching the videos from/about sicp now: http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/videos/ http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-le... amazing stuff, recommend everyone to watch.
KirinDave 18y ago
Sure, and that's okay. A lot of people like the Lisp-1 rules and PLT's interpreter is technically very good. Scheme as a spec is a simple, minimalist language. Scheme as an implementation need not be this. Very few people can fit their problem into pure, unaugmented r5rs scheme. Even if they can, it may mean writing a lot more code than other languages. I, for one, am excited to see the scheme community embrace a pragmatic goal as opposed to a purist one. Just because they support some reasonable things like FFI and keyword arguments from the get-go doesn't mean that they're suddenly common lisp with a loop sublanguage and iteration in their printfs.
gcv 18y ago
PLT Scheme still doesn't have a meta-object protocol, right? So it's still a ways behind Common Lisp the language, in my opinion. However, as far as the implementation goes, PLT Scheme is really nice and fully-featured. It also has one feature I like a whole lot: it's fully embeddable. As far as I know, neither SBCL, nor Allegro CL, nor LispWorks, nor Clozure are (I know ECL is, but I also don't know anyone who uses it). This makes PLT Scheme a reasonable choice for something like game scripting.

Stone soup. Quick summary: A stranger walks into a village, puts a pot on a fire, fills it with water and, in full view of the villagers, drops in a single stone. Curious, the villagers ask what he's up to. "Making stone soup." "You can make soup from a stone?" "Yes, it's very good. However, it's even better with a little bit of..." You see how this is going to go. One by one, the villagers bring some little thing or other to add to the stone soup, and in the end they all enjoy some, shocked at how good a soup made from a stone can taste. The relevance: The whole point of Scheme is to be a minimalist programming language. However, then someone says, "Yes, I love this minimal programming language. Very elegant. However, if you just had support for hash tables..." After several iterations of this, you have users of this programming language saying "Amazing how much you can do with this minimalist programming language..."

j2d2 18y ago
I was under the impression scheme is still minimalist and that plt/scheme is as your describe. The story is nice, but I think it's incorrectly applied.
euccastro 18y ago
Good regurgitation of Agile/Pragmatic/... folklore. Pity it has no base in reality. Most Scheme implementations have always had functionality well beyond the standard, and many Scheme users don't see a contradiction in having a minimalistic language standard[1] and rich implementations. [1] I'm talking about R5RS here, but the story doesn't apply to R6RS either. That was never intended to be a small incremental step, as your fable suggests. P.S.: BTW, I think the metaphor you meant was the boiled frog, rather than stone soup.
brlewis 18y ago
No, it doesn't happen that way. It's SICP that amazes people at what can be done with a minimalist programming language. People who use a Scheme implementation with lots of additions have no illusions of minimalism.
- schtog 18y ago
  im watching the videos from/about sicp now: http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/videos/ http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-le... amazing stuff, recommend everyone to watch.

KirinDave 18y ago

Sure, and that's okay. A lot of people like the Lisp-1 rules and PLT's interpreter is technically very good. Scheme as a spec is a simple, minimalist language. Scheme as an implementation need not be this. Very few people can fit their problem into pure, unaugmented r5rs scheme. Even if they can, it may mean writing a lot more code than other languages. I, for one, am excited to see the scheme community embrace a pragmatic goal as opposed to a purist one. Just because they support some reasonable things like FFI and keyword arguments from the get-go doesn't mean that they're suddenly common lisp with a loop sublanguage and iteration in their printfs.

gcv 18y ago

PLT Scheme still doesn't have a meta-object protocol, right? So it's still a ways behind Common Lisp the language, in my opinion. However, as far as the implementation goes, PLT Scheme is really nice and fully-featured. It also has one feature I like a whole lot: it's fully embeddable. As far as I know, neither SBCL, nor Allegro CL, nor LispWorks, nor Clozure are (I know ECL is, but I also don't know anyone who uses it). This makes PLT Scheme a reasonable choice for something like game scripting.