[HN Gopher] A small Scheme implementation with AOT and increment...
___________________________________________________________________
A small Scheme implementation with AOT and incremental compilers
that fits in 4K
Author : eatonphil
Score : 61 points
Date : 2021-11-28 19:16 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| Earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29348033
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >The Ribbit compiler is written in Scheme and can be executed
| with Gambit, Guile or Chicken.
|
| Just imagine how one who never used those tools reads it ...
| especially the "Chicken" part. Don't forget to imagine using
| search engine to find the meaning of 'Chicken' and how many nice
| results from the local farms you have to filter out before you
| find what you need.
|
| Do people think about those things when they invent them?
|
| Seriously with all those names at some point isn't it a good idea
| to use some prefix-Name where prefix explains what Name does?
|
| Because we see more and more of those "names" and it's getting
| worse and worse. Really try to read something in unfamiliar area
| with all those Chickens Dinosaurs and other artificial life forms
| )... it's getting a bit crazy.
| tubby12345 wrote:
| Why do people incessantly complain about this? It's by far the
| lowest brow complaint I've ever seen about anything - "some
| hypothetical person might not be able to Google". Note they're
| never complaining on their own behalf because they have the
| OP's link. So it's a case of "won't someone please think of the
| poor Googler".
|
| In 20 years of googling there is only one project I had a hard
| time googling (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/390016.808445).
| It does not happen.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >Why do people incessantly complain about this?
|
| May be because number of those names grows and it's becoming
| overwhelming?
|
| >"some hypothetical person"
|
| It's not hypothetical person I constantly stumble on strange
| names and frequently in context where I do not care how it is
| called as long as I know what function it performs (even
| approximately). And strange names appear more and more and
| the main question I have usually: What is it? What it does?.
|
| The same happens with web sites for new products. With all
| great slogans like "It will improve your productivity" and
| similar sentences I am not interested to read it's lacking
| one mention of what it _actually_ does and what it 's all
| about.
|
| Thus the idea to use prefix-Name format in descriptions. What
| do you think about that idea? Would it improve educational
| function? Would it be easier to understand then searching for
| the term?
| [deleted]
| zem wrote:
| I remember having trouble googling for examples of Nice and
| Clean code back when I was interested in those languages,
| because even adding "programming" and similar to the mix
| wasn't really helpful. but that was also a while ago, google
| has gotten better at contextual keywords since.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| > Seriously with all those names at some point isn't it a good
| idea to use some prefix-Name where prefix explains what Name
| does?
|
| While neither "chicken" nor "scheme" is a very good search term
| on its own, of course, "chicken scheme" works pretty well.
|
| It's far from the most unsearchable name I've seen.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Sure but this name was used just as example and even in that
| example one can say it's unclear why he should combine Scheme
| with Chicken and not other two for wining combination of
| those unfamiliar words.
|
| With all respect my focus is not with that specific name but
| with proposition to add prefixes-to-Name when it may be
| unclear to possible reader.
|
| The number of those names is growing and it seems inevitable
| to do something about it. It's hard to read page and search
| every word on it while it's enough to approximately
| understand what is it about and search for details later if
| there is a need.
| alekq wrote:
| Chicken in particular exists for roughly 20 years and like
| many projects started as hobby... Some time ago I read an
| interview with the author (Felix Winkelmann) and he gave
| the name because of the toy on his desk (if I remember
| correctly).
|
| Your point is clear, but he probably did not have second
| thoughts considering he was doing it for fun.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| It's more an issue of how much 'common vocabulary' folks
| who are interested in a subject share. If you're 'into'
| Scheme, you probably know many implementations, including
| Guile, Gambit, and Chicken. And also versions inside
| Racket, and Scheme48, and ...
|
| True, for someone coming at this who's not Scheme-
| implementation-familiar, the names might as well be Zaphod,
| or Beeblebrox, or similar-seeming nonsense.
|
| It seems in any 'domain' there is a set of definitions that
| is assumed in that domain. That is, I don't see any real
| problem with naming here.
| glenda wrote:
| Yes things like Windows, Racket, Amazon, Tesla, Apple,
| Android... these are already words that existed however
| there is clearly room to share meaning based on context.
| When you're taking about lisp and you mention "chicken"
| it's clear you're not talking about the animal.
|
| I am honestly surprised how many people in HN comments have
| this same complaint over and over again. Not everything
| needs to be directly searchable by name only.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Sure, it's just the number of them is getting bigger. So
| what do you think about mentioned idea of prefix-Name
| format in descriptions?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-28 23:00 UTC)