[plt-scheme] Papers on criticism of Scheme?

Philip Wadler certainly knows what he is talking about.
I do not fully agrree with his argument about the example
explaining the evaluation of (list (list 1 2) nil), though.
Notice that text in this font is implicitly quoted.
I would write:

$(list (list 1 2) nil) =
(x y), where x = $(list 1 2) and y = $nil
$(list 1 2) = (1 2)
$nil = ( )
Hence $(list (list 1 2) nil) = ((1 2) ( ))

where $x is the value of x.
It is a matter of an appropriate distinction between quotation, mention and value.
Other examples:

$'x == $(quote x) = x
$list is a procedure, not a sexpr.
list is a symbol, but where a non quoted part of a program probably an identifier referring to a variable.
$123 is 123.

With check syntax of DrScheme, the distiction between program and data can clearly be displayed.
In Scheme I like the clear distinction between sexprs and their values.
The fact that some sexprs are self evaluating should not confuse the student, I think.
Jos

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grant Rettke" <grettke at acm.org>
To: "PLT Scheme Mailing List" <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 8:11 PM
Subject: [plt-scheme] Papers on criticism of Scheme?


> Hi,
> 
> This paper:
> 
> http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.pdf
> 
> was referenced recently. It was interesting to see criticisms of
> Scheme from someone who knew Scheme. I think Wadler knew it well.
> 
> Are there more like this out there?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Grant
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20081102/8734c631/attachment.html>