[plt-scheme] Re: Scheme sources readability

From: Veer (diggerrrrr at gmail.com)
Date: Sun Sep 7 13:49:16 EDT 2008

In my opinion you only need to know public interface to use it in your
If public interface is documented well , then there is no need to look
into the implementation. Don't we use OS api's without knowing how
they are implemented.

On 9/7/08, kbohdan at mail.ru <kbohdan at mail.ru> wrote:
> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>> After many years of programming i found new-old
>>> scheme world very fascinating. One thing i still
>>> do not like here is source code readability.
>> Code in Scheme tends to be 1/4 or 1/3 of the size of Java.
>> The indentation structure is far more revealing than there.
>> So I find it as readable as Java or better. You could argue
>> CL is better, I wouldn't respond then.
> Yes, agree code size is much smaller, but i'm still not sure
> if it helps me to read it.
> Lets compare with Java: If i see class names like XxxAdapter,
> XxxVisitor, XxxFSM, XxxModel/XxxView/XxxController it only takes
> a seconds to understand what is going on. Can you take any
> non-trivial snippet from DrScheme collects to demonstrate your
> algorithm of code reading?
>>> What about docstrings,
>> We consider Help Desk a priority because its linked way
>> of doing docs is superior. As my PhD advisor used to say,
>> a program (he meant module) is only worth writing if you
>> also write a paper about it (he meant documentation).
>    "Help Desk" helps me to understand public interface, but
> it doesn't help me too much to understand implementation.
>  From your point of view nobody guarantee that it should be
> easy for third person to understand even interface of private
> module not even saying about its implementation. IMHO, this
> is not the case for commercial software development.
>>> design patterns (like GoF),
>> The design patterns of GOF were invented to address
>> weaknesses in Java and C++'s expressiveness when compared
>> to Scheme and LISP. Plus, when we discover a "pattern", we
>> just turn it into a construct via syntactic extensions.
>    Design patterns (DP) were invented by architect not by programmers.
> In programming DP are addressing history proven successful code
> patterns used both in coding and understanding source code.
> Despite the fact that i can implement most of patterns as macros
> doesn't mean that scheme community should not pay attention on
> architecture and force all starting scheme programmers to
> invent the bike.
>>> coding conventions. Are those non-applicable to scheme ?
>> Much higher-level coding conventions are applicable. But
>> yes I admit this takes training.
>>> Or scheme evolution is still on its early stages ?
>> Yes it is in its early stages. Fortunately, because it means
>> we have research left to do. Also fortunately, Scheme has far
>> outpaced Java and friends.
>> -- Matthias
> --
> Bohdan
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.