[plt-scheme] Re: Scheme sources readability

From: Richard Cleis (rcleis at mac.com)
Date: Sun Sep 7 18:03:14 EDT 2008

On Sep 7, 2008, at 2:03 PM, kbohdan at mail.ru wrote:

> Grant Rettke wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM,  <kbohdan at mail.ru> wrote:
>>> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>>> 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 lread 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.
>> kbohdan, my bread and butter is enterprise Java; so thanks for the
>> comic relief with your statement that "it only takes a [few] seconds
>> to understand what is going on."
> I mean surface understanding and reviewed code expected to be ideal.  
> Also expected the same-level sample in scheme.
> If it only takes *you* a few seconds,
>> then you should probably be bililng $USD in multiples of one thousand
>> per hour :)
> :) Still trying. Hope you too.
>> I would instead argue that the class name captures its intent, but  
>> you
>> don't need classes to realize the goal of the design pattern itself,
>> especially if the pattern only exists to work limitations of the  
>> class
>> system to achieve the goal of the pattern.
> Did i say that i want classes or OOP in scheme ?
> BTW, pattern name can be captured in macro.
> Please do not consider cases with "legacy GoF patterns" lets
> imagine native scheme higher order patterns. Ex:
>  - coroutines
>  - DSLs
>  - monads
>  ...
> Without pattern catalogue i can see the only way to become good  
> scheme programmer : traverse tons of web links and articles without  
> any idea what is good in practice and what is just mathematic  
> experiment.
> And that is what i'm currenly doing :)

What have you found that is not good in practice?  How was it merely a  
mathematical experiment?


>>>> 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.
>> Object-oriented (OO) decomposition of systems doesn't work unless you
>> are a product comapny. Virtually everyone doing enterprise  
>> development
>> does component oriented development (CO) (whether they want to admit
>> that or not is another story). Don't confuse using an OO language to
>> implement a CO architecture. The *only* thing that anyone should code
>> against or care about these days is the class' interface.
>> Implementation doesn't matter, especially if you're interested in
>> testing.
> Looking at code of big companies like MS, should agree here.
> From this perspective documenting private code probably is not
> very important. Simple comment will be enough.
> <snip/>
>>>> 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.
>> Architect == Senior Programmer
> "Christopher Alexander" == Senior Programmer ? :)
> <snip/>
> --
> Bohdan
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
> http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.