Re: Icon

[Matthias Felleisen <address@hidden>]

  In Scheme all things are possible, more or less;
  but I have to concede that the Haskell type system
  makes it more likely that, once the type system is
  happy, such hairy code actually works correctly.

  --Guy


1. Well, not really. How can you express once and for all that a Scheme
   function is (int -> int) -> (int -> int) ? 

2. Finding and eliminating the type bugs is proving a theorem about the
   soundness of data manipulation. It's not surprising that you eliminate
   many bugs as you do so. I do not understand, however, why the language
   should not allow you to use the dynamic debugger while you're doing
   that. 

   A few years back I spent 15 minutes implementing and running a minimini
   thread system in Scheme using call/cc and nothing else. A person who had
   worked on the SML/NJ compiler tried to mimic the idea in SML and spent 
   2 hours getting the types right. Yes, when his code ran, it was correct. 
   But is it worth the price>

   PLT Scheme will give you both. It already does in some way. 
   (No, we're not a Scheme in the pure sense. And as I have said before,
   Schemers accuse me of being an CAML in sheep-skin and MLers condemn me
   as a Scheme sinner :)

-- Matthias