2 ms·
>Work with Scheme and Haskell enough and you'll find yourself writing some convoluted things to maintain purity. I don't think you can lump all the Scheme lang
by kunjaan 16y ago
>Work with Scheme and Haskell enough and you'll find yourself writing some convoluted things to maintain purity.
I don't think you can lump all the Scheme languages into one umbrella and more importantly lump Scheme and Haskell in that context.
For example, Racket has really good constructs that lets me "drop 'purity'", control side-effects, build sequences, control the flow, build classes, manage complexity while at the same time giving me the power to build higher levels of abstractions, express my thoughts and reason with my program.
Reference:
0. Racket Guide: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/index.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/index.html
1. System Programming with Racket : http://docs.racket-lang.org/more/ http://docs.racket-lang.org/more/
- anon_d 16y agoRacket is not a scheme.
- kunjaan 16y agoRacket is a Scheme "Racket is still a dialect of Lisp and a descendant of Scheme. The tools developed by PLT will continue to support R5RS, R6RS, the old mzscheme environment, Typed Scheme, and more. At the same time, instead of having to say “PLT's main variant of Scheme,” programmers can now simply say “Racket” to refer to the specific descendant of Scheme that powers PLT's languages and libraries." Reference : http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html