chicken-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation


From: Ivan Raikov
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:25:17 +0900
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)


  There is no such thing as a "standard library" for Scheme, other
than what is defined in the R5RS standard. And there is no such thing
as "standard-issue" Scheming other than perhaps the idioms of
functional programming. R5RS Scheme was deliberately designed to be
minimalistic, in contrast with Perl, Python, and company. Which is why
there are tons of Scheme implementations to choose from, and only one
"canonical" implementation of Python. If you want a language with a
bloated "standard library", then you use Python. If you want a
language that doesn't suck, then you use Scheme. It took me only three
weeks to go from hacking in Standard ML to writing my first Chicken
Scheme egg, and I found the egg library to be rather
well-organized. And I chose Chicken Scheme precisely because of the
vast number of eggs available.  So I don't understand why on earth you
want to limit everyone's choices, because you can't be bothered to
spend a couple of weeks reading some books and doing some code
exercises in Scheme.

   -Ivan


Ozzi <address@hidden> writes:

>
> The idea I was trying to get at was something like a "standard
> library" for Chicken. When I go to the "Eggs Unlimited" page right
> now, there are lots and lots of eggs, which is great, except there's
> no easy way to tell what's standard-issue Scheming and what's more
> exotic stuff.
>
> It would be great if there were a set of eggs that were considered to
> be a standard part of Chicken, to help people who haven't been writing
> Scheme code for years get oriented. Python and Ruby have lots of
> standard functionality built in, but with Chicken you have to hunt
> down each egg you need. I think a standard library of sorts would
> help.
>
> I also believe it would help to focus development. If a consensus
> could be reached as to what kind of functionality should be included
> in a reasonably complete standard library for a useful language, then
> we could easily go about implementing that functionality. A standard
> library would provide a smaller target than the current wide-open
> universe of eggs.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]