34 ms·
I would hope that your work is a healthy mix of the kind of elegant design thinking covered in the post and real world pragmatics. Also your example problem doe
by swannodette 16y ago
I would hope that your work is a healthy mix of the kind of elegant design thinking covered in the post and real world pragmatics. Also your example problem doesn't even sound particularly bothersome to implement in Scheme.
- dkarl 16y agoIt wouldn't be hard to implement in Scheme -- I'd actually love to work in Scheme -- but if another developer asked me how to update the code for a second customer and I replied, "Start with this Scheme source code, make your changes, then apply this series of transformations and translate the resulting code into C," I would get doused in gasoline and set on fire.
- pmiller2 16y agoOf course you would be. That's because everything after "make your changes" is supposed to be applied by the Scheme compiler, possibly with assistance or annotations from the programmer (e.g. macro expansion, tail recursion elimination). Doing it manually is the Wrong Way (TM) unless you're in a PL/compilers class.
- btilly 16y agoDid you read the story that this whole discussion is about? Everything after "make your changes" was the procedure that was followed in the story. The final result was a C program that was substantially faster than anything which the Scheme compiler could ever produce. No Scheme compiler would be likely to do those transformations for you.
- silentbicycle 16y agoRead the Orbit thesis.
- mahmud 16y agoOrbit was ground-breaking, but it's Stalin that's the most powerful optimizing compiler for Scheme, or perhaps any other language.
- silentbicycle 16y agoSure but it's mentioned in-thread already, while Orbit explains the CPS and others well.
- mahmud 16y agoYep. I responded before reading the whole thread.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]