An OCaml programmer has submitted some thoughtful feedback on SRFI 241
on Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/r/scheme/comments/yruft1/comment/ivz3fqs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>.
Finally, a minor note: in my experience with OCaml or other ML
languages, it matters that all language forms that accept term-level
binders (| x -> ... but also fun x -> ..., let x = ... etc.) also
accept patterns, not just a single match construct. In Scheme I use
let-match, lambda-match on a regular basis. Unfortunately these are
less pleasant to use in my experience than the ML equivalent, because
they are non-standard forms with heavier syntax than the standard
forms (I can't just start replacing variables somewhere with a
pattern). I think that an ideal Scheme these days should integrate
pattern-matching more deeply in the language to be really convenient.
(This is not to criticize efforts to standardize at least one match
construct, it would be very nice.)
This is one of the main examples of why it's so important that we start
to explore static types ASAP. Pattern matching is a workhorse of
statically typed functional programming and would improve a lot of
dynamically typed Scheme code as well. If RnRS standardizes a `match`
syntax that doesn't fit well with the ML style, then dynamic and static
Scheme will diverge on an important part of syntax and it will be hard
to change course later.
(Since Scheme has macros, everyone is free to write their own version of
`match`, but good defaults matter.)
On another note, we have another data point that ML coders have a
thinking style which matches Scheme well (no pun intended). A joint
language would be very productive.
- Re: thoughtful feedback on SRFI 241 on Reddit Lassi Kortela
-
