Comments on: Modules http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64 A Pythoneer's adventures with Chicken Scheme. ^_^ And more. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:22:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Graham Fawcett http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-102 Graham Fawcett Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:43:45 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-102 Hans, I echo Houman's statements. It was also hard for me to accept the lack of namespaces in Chicken, but honestly I cannot say it has been a significant problem. For your *own* code, there are lots of options. The portable syntax-case system (provided as an egg) provides a module system; also, search for 'module' in the eggs list for others. I'm writing my own, just for fun: it's about 100 lines of code and does most of what I'd ever want. Hans, I echo Houman's statements. It was also hard for me to accept the lack of namespaces in Chicken, but honestly I cannot say it has been a significant problem.

For your *own* code, there are lots of options. The portable syntax-case system (provided as an egg) provides a module system; also, search for 'module' in the eggs list for others. I'm writing my own, just for fun: it's about 100 lines of code and does most of what I'd ever want.

]]> By: Houman Zolfaghari http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-92 Houman Zolfaghari Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:28:11 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-92 Three years ago, I had to choose a scheme implementation for a big project (meaning CPU and data intensive, and designed to evolve over many years). For many different reasons, I chose chicken over PLT scheme and gambit (gambit had almost no libraries). My biggest concern with chicken was precisely namespace/modules. Now, after 3 intensive chicken years, I'm surprised that I haven't missed them yet. I should say though that I have yet to see a module system in scheme that solves all the problems while keeping the natural simplicity and bare elegance of scheme . IMHO, all the solutions I've seen are either too arbitrary or too elaborate. I'm not a scheme-at-all-cost proponent, and if I was to abandon the simplicity of scheme, I would as well use CL, Ocaml or Haskell. I don't write that to enter another boring my-scheme vs your scheme war. I have lots of respect the PLT team's work, as well as each one the scheme implementations. They all have their own strengths and priorities. But this my answer to the question of the necessity of a namespace system. Many people are using chicken, and producing lots of libraries, and the need for a more elaborate module system was rarely if ever expressed. Maybe we should ask them directly in their in mailing list why and how they can live without it? Three years ago, I had to choose a scheme implementation for a big project (meaning CPU and data intensive, and designed to evolve over many years). For many different reasons, I chose chicken over PLT scheme and gambit (gambit had almost no libraries). My biggest concern with chicken was precisely namespace/modules.

Now, after 3 intensive chicken years, I'm surprised that I haven't missed them yet.

I should say though that I have yet to see a module system in scheme that solves all the problems while keeping the natural simplicity and bare elegance of scheme . IMHO, all the solutions I've seen are either too arbitrary or too elaborate. I'm not a scheme-at-all-cost proponent, and if I was to abandon the simplicity of scheme, I would as well use CL, Ocaml or Haskell.

I don't write that to enter another boring my-scheme vs your scheme war. I have lots of respect the PLT team's work, as well as each one the scheme implementations. They all have their own strengths and priorities. But this my answer to the question of the necessity of a namespace system.

Many people are using chicken, and producing lots of libraries, and the need for a more elaborate module system was rarely if ever expressed. Maybe we should ask them directly in their in mailing list why and how they can live without it?

]]> By: Robby Findler http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-90 Robby Findler Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:36:49 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-90 Well, for one, I would definitely miss modules if they were removed from PLT Scheme. (One thing to keep in mind about the various Schemes out there is that they are really like kissing cousins than actually the same language implemented multiple times.) Well, for one, I would definitely miss modules if they were removed from PLT Scheme. (One thing to keep in mind about the various Schemes out there is that they are really like kissing cousins than actually the same language implemented multiple times.)

]]> By: Jens Axel Søgaard http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-88 Jens Axel Søgaard Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:51:24 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/64#comment-88 Hi Hans, You can inspect modules, require them dynamically and more in PLT Scheme. For inspection see: http://pre.plt-scheme.org/docs/html/reference/Expanding_Top-Level_Forms.html#(part~20modinfo) More tricks can be accomplished with the help of module->namespace. Search for module in the pre-release version of the documentation. For a more direct answer, don't hessitate to ask the PLT mailing list. Hi Hans,

You can inspect modules, require them dynamically and more in PLT Scheme. For inspection see:

http://pre.plt-scheme.org/docs/html/reference/Expanding_Top-Level_Forms.html#(part~20modinfo)

More tricks can be accomplished with the help of module->namespace.

Search for module in the pre-release version of the documentation. For a more direct answer, don't hessitate to ask the PLT mailing list.

]]>