Navigating Scheme Modules
Steve Knight
I've programmed a bit of CL (SBCL) and I'm trying to get more into
Scheme.
I'm converging on choosing PLT Scheme for a personal project, but I
find it slow/difficult to traverse the documentation to find the
functions I need.
Since I want my code to be as portable as possible I usually start by
looking what's in the revised report, then if there's nothing suitable
I'll look at the SRFIs, then at PLT's supplied libraries and finally
on Planet. By the time I discover that there's no such appropriate
function it feels like I've traversed a lot of the web!
This isn't a criticism of PLT Scheme per-se, it's just I think I'm
approaching the problem in a haphazard way.
Any tips on how to grok with the scheme docs would be greatly
appreciated!
Steve
marcomaggi
> Since I want my code to be as portable as possible I usually start by
> looking what's in the revised report, then if there's nothing suitable
> I'll look at the SRFIs, then at PLT's supplied libraries and finally
> on Planet. By the time I discover that there's no such appropriate
> function it feels like I've traversed a lot of the web!
IMHO you should just go with searchable PLT-specific docs and make
something that works for you. Achieving portability can be easy,
difficult or impossible depending on what you want to do.
Being that you are doing a pilot project to get acquainted to Scheme,
making it work and have fun is the priority; else you will waste time
and get bored: it may take a lot of time to discover that a module you
need is not available in a portable form.
--
Marco Maggi
Michele Simionato
> looking what's in the revised report, then if there's nothing suitable
> I'll look at the SRFIs, then at PLT's supplied libraries and finally
> on Planet. By the time I discover that there's no such appropriate
> function it feels like I've traversed a lot of the web!
IMO, if you want portability your best best is to work in the r6rs
language. Notice that
there is a compromise between the effort required to the programmer
and the result obtained in terms of portability. Some people would be
willing to perform a bigger effort, coding in terms R5RS to ensure
better portability, others would just
not care about portability (and they are probably right).
Steve Knight
Whilst the project is chiefly for fun at the moment it's my intention
to monetize it some day. Because of this I don't want to choose the
wrong implementation.
I like PLT so far, and it's not because PLT is deficient that I'm
asking. It's just it's hard to make an informed choice as a
beginner. For instance at some point I'll need a decent FFI.
But what you say makes sense. Perhaps I should not worry so much ;-)
Grant Rettke
> Whilst the project is chiefly for fun at the moment it's my intention
> to monetize it some day. Because of this I don't want to choose the
> wrong implementation.
PLT is a good choice.
Marek Kubica
Steve Knight <stk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Whilst the project is chiefly for fun at the moment it's my intention
> to monetize it some day. Because of this I don't want to choose the
> wrong implementation.
>
> I like PLT so far, and it's not because PLT is deficient that I'm
> asking. It's just it's hard to make an informed choice as a
> beginner. For instance at some point I'll need a decent FFI.
That's why I write R6RS programs. spells[1] offers an FFI for multiple
R6RS implementations.
regards,
Marek