poniedziałek, 18 września 2023 o 23:32:45 UTC+2 comp.lang.scheme napisał(a):
Scheme+ for Guile : https://github.com/damien-mattei/Scheme-PLUS-for-Guile Scheme+ for Racket : https://damien-mattei.github.io/Scheme-PLUS-for-Racket/Scheme+io.html
"The idea of introducing Algol-like syntax into Lisp keeps popping up and has seldom failed to
create enormous controversy between those who find the universal use of S-expressions a technical
advantage (and don't mind the admitted relative clumsiness of S-expressions for numerical expres-
sions) and those who are certain that algebraic syntax is more concise, more convenient, or even
more natural (whatever that may mean, considering that all these notations are articial).
We conjecture that Algol-style syntax has not really caught on in the Lisp community as a whole
for two reasons. First, there are not enough special symbols to go around. When your domain of
discourse is limited to numbers or characters, there are only so many operations of interest, so it
is not difficult to assign one special character to each and be done with it. But Lisp has a much
richer domain of discourse, and a Lisp programmer often approaches an application as yet another
exercise in language design; the style typically involves designing new data structures and new
functions to operate on them -- perhaps dozens or hundreds -- and it's to o hard to invent that many
distinct symbols (though the APL community certainly has tried). Ultimately one must always fall
back on a general function-call notation; it's just that Lisp programmers don't wait until they fail.
Second, and perhaps more important, Algol-style syntax makes programs look less like the data
structures used to represent them. In a culture where the ability to manipulate representations of
programs is a central paradigm, a notation that distances the appearance of a program from the
appearance of its representation as data is not likely to be warmly received (and this was, and is,
one of the principal objections to the inclusion of loop in Common Lisp).
On the other hand, precisely because Lisp makes it easy to play with program representations,
it is always easy for the novice to experiment with alternative notations. Therefore we expect
future generations of Lisp programmers to continue to reinvent Algol-style syntax for Lisp, over
and over and over again, and we are equally confident that they will continue, after an initial period
of infatuation, to reject it. (Perhaps this process should be regarded as a rite of passage for Lisp
hackers.)"
-- Steele and Gabriel, "The Evolution of Lisp"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)