[gambit-list] DrScheme and GambitC
Alex Sandro Queiroz e Silva
asandroq at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 14:42:48 EDT 2008
Hallo,
William Cook wrote:
> Alex,
>
> Scheme is an imperative language, and anyway I'd like to see my
> let-bindings when I'm inside a function. I don't believe the claims that
> Scheme doesn't need a traditional debugger because it is somehow
> different. It is true that traditional debuggers don't work for Haskell,
> but they do for Scheme.
>
> I've been programming on and off in Lisp and Scheme for almost 30 years
> (and yes, i started young!), so I'm not exactly a newbie. What makes me
> an outsider in this community is that I never got excited about Emacs.
>
I am sorry I misunderstood you. But I stand to my claim. Of course
Scheme is unlike Haskell and one can program thus:
(define (my-func a b)
(set! a b)
(let ((c (something))
(d a))
(set! c (other thing)
...))
There is not any technical problem with that. But as I said before,
*well-written* Scheme programs are not a sequence of instructions. Even
loops are functions calls. State-machines change state with function
calls, not assigning a variable. You may need to put breakpoints inside
a function, but I did not ever had the need. I am trying to just give
advice here, please forgive me if I am being too dense.
Lisp is not as much functional because of the lack of proper tail call
optimisations, and is much more imperative.
Cheers,
-alex
http://www.ventonegro.org/
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list