This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Since I received a couple of replies, a clarification: Do you want a gnu scheme or a canonical scripting language? In my opinion these goals are not likely to be congruent. The difficulty is not functional programming, it is lack of visual cues for variable binding scope and control flow. How scheme compares to other existing languages is not the issue. The differences between functional, imperative, and object-oriented programming where they exist are not the primary obstacle to deployment of scheme. Let's use a different analogy and see if the point becomes clear: It's ten years ago, and you're flying around in this Huey (huge helicopter), getting big jobs done (using common lisp). You decide that having something that worked more or less the same way but was much smaller and more nimble would certainly be handy for some of the work that you need to do. So you design this small, fast, nimble helicopter, and you call it scheme. How likely is it that this new helicopter is going to become a useful daily commuter vehicle? "Well, we weren't design a 4-seater subcompact." Exactly. Regards, Clayton Weaver <mailto:cgweav@eskimo.com> (Seattle)