Re: my latest blog post

[Catonano]

2018-06-09 12:39 GMT+02:00 Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden>:

Catonano <address@hidden> writes:

> Assuming that users read academic articles about programming languages in
> order to know your way aroung Guile is not reasonable

I fail to see how this follows from Guile’s lack of a macro stepper. 

Then you were not following

Mark indicated me a paper about the first macro stepper in history

 

To
be honest, I never even heard of a macro stepper before. 

I haden't heard of it neither

I am following Mark's distinction, here, between a macro stepper and macroexpand-1

I don't know if other schemes lack macroexpand-1 too but at this point it wouldn't be relevant anymore

 

And I have
never felt the need to read computer science papers to “know my way
around Guile”.  (I have not studied computer science, so it isn’t that
my background allowed me to skip papers that are mandatory for other
users of Guile.)

The sentence above seems like an exaggeration to me.

Ok, thans for your contribution
 

(I say this with no hostility, just with surprise.)

we have a loooong way to go

 

> The monad accessing the daemon, how would I delve in it ?

The Guix manual should explain it fully, while assuming that the concept
of a monad is known (because that’s not a Guix or Guile invention). 

And how would I know what a monad is without reading academic materials ?

Maybe Haskell is a requirement in order to use Guile//Guix ?

"assuming that the concept of a monad is known" is a problem.

Someone would want to _learn_ what a monad is AND how it can be implemented in scheme, by dissecting this Guix macro based feature

Do you think that the code should be kept obscure and unaccessible ?

So much for the Emacs of distros