[plt-scheme] Are new Schemers supposed to be reading SRFIs?

From: John Clements (clements at brinckerhoff.org)
Date: Thu May 10 15:27:08 EDT 2007

On May 10, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Grant Rettke wrote:

> Today I read some code that used the 'any' function from SRFI-1.
> Taking a look at SRFI-1, I found that there are some nifty functions
> in there.
> Is it my responsibility to read the SRFIs just to know what is  
> possible?

One "advantage" of languages with little opportunity for abstraction  
is that you don't need to worry about problems like this; you just  
write the whole thing yourself.

As you observe, the problem with languages like scheme and  
lightweight library distribution channels like Planet is that it's  
impossible to keep up with all of the libraries that you might be using.

In some ways, this resembles the problems that doctors have; in order  
to give the best possible advice, they need to keep up with all of  
the most recent findings, while at the same time discounting somewhat  
the more recent & unverified one.

I don't think that CS has yet evolved (or, hitherto, needed to  
evolve) a good channel for this kind of dissemination.  This problem  
is more acute since using a library fluidly requires remembering the  
model used by that library. Perhaps this is what something like Dr.  
Dobb's Journal is supposed to do. The "trades", as Harry Shearer says.

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention HtUS (htus.org).

I'm sure there are people that have thought about this much harder  
than I have.

John Clements

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2223 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20070510/79d306c8/attachment.p7s>

Posted on the users mailing list.