[plt-scheme] Re: Scheme sources readability

From: Henk Boom (lunarc.lists at gmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 8 11:06:47 EDT 2008

2008/9/8  <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 07:56:39AM +0300, kbohdan at mail.ru wrote:
>> Richard Cleis wrote:
>> <snip/>
>> >>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?
>> >
>> >RAC
>> Many things.
>>  For example famous "amb" from SICP. It looks great, but i haven't seen
>> something like this is used in practice.
>>  Other example are monads which look great and promising, but people
>> say that in scheme they are "not big fun".
> Monads were invented so that you could do imperative stuff (at least
> top-level) within a purely functional language, and the theoretical
> combinator-calculus coding was to justify that it was, in some
> theoretical sense at least, still functional.
> Scheme is not purely functional, it has side-affecting
> operatins, and has no need for the monads.

There are other types of monads in Haskell for doing different things.
See the 'Maybe' monad for an example.


Posted on the users mailing list.