On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:59:05 -0400, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anton van Straaten scripsit:
>
>> Right. But the question is, should it be possible to implement all
>> those things in Scheme, without having to resort to coding in some lower
>> level or host language? If the answer is yes, then you still need
>> something like first-class continuations. The same argument applies to
>> (something like) threads.
>
> Possible is one thing, sensible is another. It's possible to implement
> blobs with ordinary general vectors, if you don't mind paying the price.
I have seen some people argue against a feature because you would never
use it in practice, but would just use some higher-level concept or other
syntax to handle it. Things like exceptions. But I think it's important to
be able to implement Scheme in Scheme. We should never be inclined to
implement some features at a different "level" like system level
(implemented in a "Low-level" language) and an user level (using Scheme).
Rather, they're all the same level, and Scheme is as suitable, and should
continue to be as suitable, for all types of programming. There shouldn't
be an unreasonable cost for implementing Scheme in Scheme either, and
there doesn't need to be, as systems like Chez Scheme demonstrate.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
