Scheme vs ML again and again and again and again 
Author Message
 Scheme vs ML again and again and again and again

In-Reply-To: Robert Harper's message of Sat, 3 Aug 1996 13:48:55 -0400

> I think it's worth setting down the story in the Scheme FAQ (which is
> maintained, I think, by Mark Kantrowitz here at CMU, or at least was at one
> time).  What exactly is the question that should be answered for the FAQ?

I'm not sure.  It may have to be more than one.  The basic issue
seems to be something like

  Why does Scheme have dynamic typing -- wouldn't static typing
  be better?

But there's probably a better way to put it.

-- jeff

Mon, 25 Jan 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Scheme vs ML again and again and again and again

> Date: 01 Aug 1996 17:41:25 GMT

>    I proposed a moratorium on discussions re ML vs Scheme and static
>    vs dynamic typing [...]

>    Can't we "just say `no'" and stop?

> Perhaps.

> The problem I see with this proposal is that such discussions don't
> come up on their own, but are prompted by other, Scheme-related
> questions.  For example, if someone asks about the why and how of
> multiple values, then discussion will naturally go the following path:

>         aren't multiple values ugly and unnecessary?
>         [... ML]
>         ...

> I guess you catch my drift.

That's why I didn't propose a moratorium on discussions that *might
lead to* Scheme vs ML or to static vs dynamic typing.  ^_^

> Frankly, there isn't much interesting left to discuss if we want to
> block out every mention of types.

Well, I didn't propose that there be no discussion of typing either.

>       So in order to comply with the
> moratorium some of us will have to stop saying anything at all.  Not a
> bad idea, I guess...

I'd like us to stop going over the same ground again and again.

If a discussion of multiple values leads to ML, that's fine.  Tell
how ML does it, mention how compilers can eliminate inefficiency,
maybe mention a few other points -- but briefly.  Maybe refer
people to a FAQ (for ML or Scheme or whatever) or some other
on-line resource.  But don't bring back the whole Scheme vs ML
debate in all it's glory.

If someone says how annoying it is to have to type declarations,
it's fine to mention type inference and ML.  But, again, keep
it brief and try to stay out of exchanges aimed at showing that
ML is better than Scheme, no it isn't, yes it is, etc, etc.

-- jd

Tue, 26 Jan 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Scheme vs ML again and again and again and again

2. Scheme vs ML again and again

3. static vs. dynamic typing (again, again)

4. APL and J (again and again) (long)

5. APL and J (again and again)

6. 'SQL Server Login': Again, again, ...

7. All in EXE file AGAIN AGAIN

8. trees again and again

9. Re-inventing hot water again and again

10. tcltest processes subdirectory again and again - Why?

11. Newsgroup access again, good to see you all again

12. How to make a command run again and again until it sees a certain pattern


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software