3 ms·
It would be even more excellent if people for a change wrote more _in_ scheme instead of _a_ scheme.
by muuh-gnu 14y ago
It would be even more excellent if people for a change wrote more _in_ scheme instead of _a_ scheme.
- chimeracoder 14y agoWhy write a program that gets your job done when you can just as easily write a language that makes writing that program trivial? (I'm only being partly tongue-in-cheek - that's mentality behind idiomatic Lisp).
- dizzystar 14y agoIt would be the equivalent to writing Java on top of Haskell. You wouldn't creat Java, you would be creating _a_ Java. "Scheme" has many different dialects as well. Racket is _a_ Scheme, Edwin interprets MIT's version of Scheme, then there is Gambit Scheme. There are certainly other Schemes, and the implementation of Scheme on Haskell isn't going to be the same as the other dialects listed here. There are quite a few examples of Prolog-to-Lisp interpreters, but no one would argue that any of these _are_ Prolog.