[plt-scheme] Re: Scheme sources readability

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.

-- hendrik