[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Patch (Re: [Texmacs-dev] Once again: automatic quoting)

From: Henri Lesourd
Subject: Re: Patch (Re: [Texmacs-dev] Once again: automatic quoting)
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:48:48 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

But perhaps I don't look exactly at the right
place : could you elaborate more on why, precisely
you feel that Scheme is one of the more uncomfortable
languages for you ?

I think it is for a large part the syntax. There are other functional
programming languages that have a greatly improved syntax compared to
the old style Lisp. (Haskell, Ocaml and others)
Yes. But there are not very embeddable. In this
respect, Guile is very good. The only other potential
embeddable replacements would be Python, or the more
recent (and very nice indeed) Lua. But these ones didn't
exist in the beginning of TeXmacs, I think.

First, one should get rid of all the parenthesis. Then, there should be
sane infix notations for operators.

Finally, it would also be possible to use a syntax that is very near to
what people know from imperative languages. Fact is: the majority of
programmers has experience in C/C++, only few are comfortable with
functional programming. It is possible to hide the functional character
of a language to a large extent. Basically, Scheme already is not purely
functional any more. One could very well adjust the syntax to that fact.

There are many more points. Hard to solve this problem here and now.
It seems. But adding more easy macros, providing more help (including
pointers to good Scheme tutorials) is a feasible solution that could
lead to a more easy life for potential contributors.

reply via email to

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