5 ms·
Really, what he's saying is that it saves a lot of time to prototype code in a convenient language, and then translate parts to optimized code in a fast languag
by silentbicycle 16y ago
Really, what he's saying is that it saves a lot of time to prototype code in a convenient language, and then translate parts to optimized code in a fast language (where necessary), once good algorithms have been worked out. Many fast languages get their speed by trading away flexibility.
This is not specific to Scheme, though - while it's a good prototyping language, so are Lua (my favorite, and LuaJIT reduces the need for C), awk, Python, etc.
Knowing how to implement the prototyping languages' constructs efficiently in the "fast" language is important, though.
Of course, "fast" and "convenient" can also be the same language, such as prototyping in Common Lisp and then adding declarations. OCaml is also quite good.
- dkarl 16y agoHe did say the semantics-preserving transformations were easier in Scheme: This is where Scheme really won. Because of its extremely algorithmic---almost mathematical---nature, Scheme can be easily manipulated in a sort of algebraic style.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Peaker 16y agoHaskell is usually great at both convenience and speed, without having to add annotations, even, most of the time