Joe Marshall escribió: >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:06:18 -0400, AntonioV <[email protected]> >>> I don't think any Scheme >>> user is "resistant" to have a standards-compliant "sockets" (XML/ >>> Threads/etc) library!! > > I am. >
So am I. That was just an example. I don't use sockets anymore. [...] > > Here's what I want: if I'm using a network, I'm probably either > writing a client or > server (or peer). There is a protocol to be followed (likely it has > been standardized). So do I! http:make-connection, http:close-connection http:put, http:get, http:post, http:delete, http:head +read/write and I'd be all set. > > Similarly with threads. These are a disaster. It is very hard to program > with > concurrency. It is harder still if your concurrancy mechanism is something > as primitive as a thread. In nearly every implementation of Common Lisp > I've worked on, they've made major errors in concurrency control. And these > are the *vendors*. The users have no hope of getting it right. Agreed again. Scheme is highly parallelizable, so I don't see a reason to program multithreaded code. The evaluator should do that for us. We should be worried about working sequentially, but then "begin" should come to the rescue... _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
