This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. The following text was found in Hygienic macro, but I don't know enough about Scheme to integrate properly. Please could someone else handle this:
Scheme macros:
-- DJ Clayworth 15:28, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Most of the advantages listed stem from more general design decisions than that of Scheme in particular:
I've therefore added in the section what these advantages stem from. -- Sam 00:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Two sections, Disadvantages of Scheme and Standards, talk about official and community standards, but in a rather unenlightening way. A brief history of scheme should be written, covering the nature of the RnRS process, the status of the IEEE standard, the reasons for doubting there will ever be an R6RS, and why the SRFI process was created and what has been going on with it.
I propose a rewrite of these two sections, with a new section "Evolution of Scheme" as the first numbered section that covers the above. Any objections to me diving in and doing that? -- Charles Stewart 09:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am not the one who originally deleted the link to Toki Pona, but after checking it, there is no Scheme code on that page contrary to what the section title claims. In fact it does not have anything to do with Scheme. Therefore I have removed the link. Is there any good reason to link to that article that I have missed? -- Sam 04:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A point: while the current scheme standards assert that the types are disjoint, and in particular that #f and '() are distinct, this has only been the case since the IEEE standard and R4RS. R3RS permitted these two to be the same, and MIT scheme had this equality. This comment is provoked by this edit. -- Charles Stewart 14:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Really? There's PLT and Chicken, among others very high quality free implementations. I'd pick Chicken over Python any day of the week. "filesystem access, a socket interface, HTML processing," all these are readily available these days.
I can agree that there needs to be some disadvantages listed but all of the listed things are things that are currently false, since:
The namespace thing.. yes, some people do see that as a disadvantage; others see it as a huge advantage. A short note should be made that these two sides exist, with discussion moved to another page.
Real disadvantages:
Maybe CL-folks could list some disadvantages that scheme has? otoh I've never seen any CL folks with a good understanding of scheme.
Hi, I was just reading the article out of curiosity. I really liked most of the article and actually became interested in learning the language. I don't know how to program in scheme or any lisp dialect for that mater. I am not a CS major, but am not computer illiterate either. I program in other languages like C, Objective-C, perl, and php just for fun. I was trying to follow the tail-recursive example and was completely unable to do it and I don't feel is my fault. I believe that a few comments on the code and perhaps explaining what do the "let loop" expression and the "do statement" do instead of vaguely mentioning that they are "syntactic sugar" could help. I would write them myself but as I said, unfortunately I don't know how to program in scheme.
I don't know the specifics of the rest of the discussion, but I really liked the article aside from these rough edges, Good Job!!
let
" form sets up a local subroutine, here called loop
. This routine has two local variables, called fact
and n
. (I'd call them total
and iter
or some such, but whatever.) Inside this subroutine, you can think of a tail-call to loop
as just a GOTO back up to the top of the named let
, only with these variables modified.Isn't the following claim in the 1st paragraph of the article (boldface mine) revisionist?
From Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, available online [1] the most complete historical account that I was able to find on a moment's notice follows:
I have been unable to document the claim that Scheme is in some way indebted to the Actor model (I have two refereneces Kent Dybvig's book and Abelson and Sussman. I find the claim strange, since I have used scheme and T and recognize its heritage, but the actor model I didn't think was one of the predecessors, particularly of such prominence. I will believe the claim, however, if someone provides a reference. -- CSTAR 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The intro currently reads:
I'd like to rewrite this to remove the necessity for the two parenthetical statements. Here's my first draft for a rewrite:
In an edit at 20:34, 2 October 2005, 24.128.49.163 ( talk · contribs) made the following changes:
1. "Some people are at first put off by all the parentheses used in Scheme notation." -> "Many people are put off by all the parentheses used in Scheme notation.
2. "after a short period of accommodation the parentheses become unobtrusive" -> "after a period of accommodation the parentheses supposedly become unobtrusive"
3. Addition of two paragraphs describing the syntax of Scheme as "cryptic and unintuitive...therefore relatively hard to learn" Claiming that Scheme program execution speed is limited to "a fraction of the speed of programs written in a modern compiler language." by the mode of implementation. Claiming that the use of Scheme as a good introductory language for computer science is "a myth [that] has been debunked."
Point 1 seems incorrect and ignores the learning curve.
Point 2 is weaseling, "supposedly".
The syntax of Scheme is as a matter of fact on of the simplest of any programming language. The assumption that Scheme cannot be compiled is simply incorrect. No support is given for the claim that the utility of Scheme for introductory computer science has been "debunked."
I have therefore reverted. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
These sections are POV, not to mention unsourced and very subjective. It reads like point->counter-point, where the last counter-point ends up being pro-scheme and in some cases anti-lisp. The disadvantage section itself is more like a "debunking disadvantages" section and it's funny that it's tiny in comparison to the advantages section anyway. I'm not even sure how things like curly/square brackets are an "advantage" over anything. Plus I question adding an "advantages" section in general to any programming language article. Most don't have a "advantages" section and for good reason, because you're not actually comparing it to anything except "every other programming language in existence," which isn't helpful. Nathan J. Yoder 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The hygienic macro system is always built on some low-level facility which provides the full power of non-hygienic macros, including arbitrary syntax-time computations.
What does this mean? That every single Scheme implementation provides unhygienic macros in some way?
As I enjoy programming in Scheme I'm employing that language in writing tools for Wikipedia. The first tool is one that measures the degree of vandalism on popular articles on various Wikipedias by examining edit summaries to recognise probable reverts of vandalism. At the time of writing it recognises vandalism reverts on the English, German, French and Spanish Wikipedias. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the links in the Implementations section seem more like ads than encyclopedia citations. That section looks a bit like a WP:SPAMHOLE; cleanup would be good. — donhalcon ╤ 04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be really cool to upload sound files for the pronounciation of car and cdr. Anyone know how to do this? Ideogram 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have done this. It is way cool. Ideogram 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a box-and-pointer diagram to the explanation for how lists are composed of cons cells. Ideogram 10:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have done this. Ideogram 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Can more be said about ports? I am not familiar with them. Ideogram 23:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There is not much to be said about ports that is not already said in
the article. Quoting
R5RS: "Ports represent input and output devices. To Scheme, an input port is a Scheme object that can deliver characters upon command, while an output port is a Scheme object that can accept characters." read
and write
and the other I/O operations of Scheme operate on ports. They more or less correspond to istream and ostream of
C++. —
Tobias Bergemann
12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
current-input-port
and current-output-port
need not return the port objects corresponding to stdin
and stdout
at all times. Within the dynamic scope of with-input-from-file
or with-output-to-file
a call to current-*-port
would return the port object corresponding to the respective file. —
Tobias Bergemann
13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)how is scheme strongly typed (infobox)? Ideogram 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see the programming language talk page for more discussion of this issue. Ideogram 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs more information about the data types available in scheme. I have been using this page as a scheme reference whenever I am coding; the lack of mention of vectors is something that specifically bothers me. 24.61.12.141 01:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Where does this image come from? We need a fair use rationale if we are to continue using this image. Otherwise, it will have to be removed. Ideogram 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Why delete cdr.ogg? This is a different sound file. Ideogram 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The only necessary thing to change for the GA status is:
The next items will need to be addressed or changed in order to become a FA :
Functions are first-class objects in Scheme. They can be arguments to other functions and be returned by them. They can be assigned to variables. For example a function with two arguments arg1 and arg2 can be defined as
(define fun (lambda (arg1 arg2) ...))
which can be abbreviated as follows:
(define (fun arg1 arg2) ...)
Functions are applied with the following syntax:
(fun value1 value2)
Note that the function being applied is in the first position of the list while the rest of the list contain the arguments. The apply
function will take the first argument and apply it to a given list of arguments, so the previous function call can also be written as
(apply fun (list value1 value2))
1 (define fun (lambda (arg1 arg2) ...))
2 (define (fun arg1 arg2) ...)
3 (fun value1 value2)
4 (apply fun (list value1 value2))
Functions are first-class objects in Scheme. They can be arguments to other functions and be returned by them. They can be assigned to variables. For example a function with two arguments arg1 and arg2 is defined in line 1 and line 2 is an abbreviation of it. Line 3 shows how functions are applied. Though it should be noted that the function being applied is in the first position of the list while the rest of the list contain the arguments. The apply function will take the first argument and apply it to a given list of arguments, so the previous function call can also be written as seen on line 4.
Nice article though that I would like to see more written like prose than a list or coding. Lincher 00:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have Good article status, to reach Featured article status the main obstacle is the lack of citations. I have tagged all the statements that need citing. Ideogram 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The info box is supposed to contain "major" implementations. I have trouble believing that all of the implementations listed are "major". -- Ideogram 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Scheme programming language → Scheme (programming language) – Conformance with WP naming conventions LotLE× talk
The page was moved. Move discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages/Renaming poll
I would have expected to see some hint as to where it's most used currently - embedded systems? teaching children? e-commerce sites? games programming? networked clusters? - I would guess that people exist that would argue that it's The Best Language for all of the above, but where is is Actually Used Most.... -- Snori 06:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
to compile on Allegro CL." is hardly resounding support for chalking that one up to Scheme - just looking a little like it is a far too weak criterion to use. -- Gwern (contribs) 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand the object orientation bit - I see that as mostly an example of regular (transparent) data structures, but the example shows no encapsulation, polymorphism, classes (not really required), only a little object and method call/message passing style.
For it to be "object oriented", I'd expect some kind of behaviour being stored in the Billy the cat (in a prototype-oriented fashion), mabye a lambda expression which given a cat as a reference print meows 'age' times. I don't want to start a full debate over what object orientation is (the Wikipedia topic is fine), but I think the otherwise good article could be improved this way (and it's been a while since I last Schemed, so...)
--Jespersm
(define (make-cat name) (lambda (message) (case message ((say-name) (lambda () name)) ((set-name) (lambda (new-name) (set! name new-name))) (else (error "Bad message sent to a cat"))))) (define bill (make-cat "Bill")) (display ((bill 'say-name))) (newline) ((bill 'set-name) "George") (display ((bill 'say-name))) (newline)
Why was the implementations section removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.171.59 ( talk • contribs)
This is a good article, as it describes the language thoroughly and in detail without becoming overly long. I would like to know, though: what is Scheme used for, most commonly? That was my biggest question after looking through the article. If anybody wants to add a "usage" section, or something like that, that would be great! I'm sure there are good applications of Scheme, I just don't know what they are... Cherry Cotton 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the archive? If it's not around any more, then I propose that the template's deleted. Angus Lepper 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Scheme is described as multi-paradigm, but the article does not say which ones (other than functional), and scheme is not listed at Multi-paradigm_programming_language. I'm a scheme newbie so i can't fix it. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the recent edits to the definition of this function, am I the only one to think we need to come up with some consensus as to the formatting of it? My personal preference would be pretty similar to how it is currently, but have no strong feeling any way — other than that it should stick as something, rather than switch every few hours. Angus Lepper( T, C, D) 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've written a draft for a Wikipedia page for the Ikarus Scheme implementation. However, I have a minor conflict of interest. I personally know the author of Ikarus as we are both graduate students in the same department and I have helped test Ikarus, but I have not directly developed any code for Ikarus. In the interests of good faith, I'd like to ask for someone independent to review the article and if it is up to standards, add it to Wikipedia. (If the page needs development before being added, feel free to edit my draft.) Mdmkolbe ( talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving the article to Main space. Not only does it save me from writing a much shorter stub myself, as one of the few aiming-for R6RS Schemes, Ikarus definately deserves a page. -- MarSch 12:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. The following text was found in Hygienic macro, but I don't know enough about Scheme to integrate properly. Please could someone else handle this:
Scheme macros:
-- DJ Clayworth 15:28, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Most of the advantages listed stem from more general design decisions than that of Scheme in particular:
I've therefore added in the section what these advantages stem from. -- Sam 00:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Two sections, Disadvantages of Scheme and Standards, talk about official and community standards, but in a rather unenlightening way. A brief history of scheme should be written, covering the nature of the RnRS process, the status of the IEEE standard, the reasons for doubting there will ever be an R6RS, and why the SRFI process was created and what has been going on with it.
I propose a rewrite of these two sections, with a new section "Evolution of Scheme" as the first numbered section that covers the above. Any objections to me diving in and doing that? -- Charles Stewart 09:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am not the one who originally deleted the link to Toki Pona, but after checking it, there is no Scheme code on that page contrary to what the section title claims. In fact it does not have anything to do with Scheme. Therefore I have removed the link. Is there any good reason to link to that article that I have missed? -- Sam 04:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A point: while the current scheme standards assert that the types are disjoint, and in particular that #f and '() are distinct, this has only been the case since the IEEE standard and R4RS. R3RS permitted these two to be the same, and MIT scheme had this equality. This comment is provoked by this edit. -- Charles Stewart 14:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Really? There's PLT and Chicken, among others very high quality free implementations. I'd pick Chicken over Python any day of the week. "filesystem access, a socket interface, HTML processing," all these are readily available these days.
I can agree that there needs to be some disadvantages listed but all of the listed things are things that are currently false, since:
The namespace thing.. yes, some people do see that as a disadvantage; others see it as a huge advantage. A short note should be made that these two sides exist, with discussion moved to another page.
Real disadvantages:
Maybe CL-folks could list some disadvantages that scheme has? otoh I've never seen any CL folks with a good understanding of scheme.
Hi, I was just reading the article out of curiosity. I really liked most of the article and actually became interested in learning the language. I don't know how to program in scheme or any lisp dialect for that mater. I am not a CS major, but am not computer illiterate either. I program in other languages like C, Objective-C, perl, and php just for fun. I was trying to follow the tail-recursive example and was completely unable to do it and I don't feel is my fault. I believe that a few comments on the code and perhaps explaining what do the "let loop" expression and the "do statement" do instead of vaguely mentioning that they are "syntactic sugar" could help. I would write them myself but as I said, unfortunately I don't know how to program in scheme.
I don't know the specifics of the rest of the discussion, but I really liked the article aside from these rough edges, Good Job!!
let
" form sets up a local subroutine, here called loop
. This routine has two local variables, called fact
and n
. (I'd call them total
and iter
or some such, but whatever.) Inside this subroutine, you can think of a tail-call to loop
as just a GOTO back up to the top of the named let
, only with these variables modified.Isn't the following claim in the 1st paragraph of the article (boldface mine) revisionist?
From Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, available online [1] the most complete historical account that I was able to find on a moment's notice follows:
I have been unable to document the claim that Scheme is in some way indebted to the Actor model (I have two refereneces Kent Dybvig's book and Abelson and Sussman. I find the claim strange, since I have used scheme and T and recognize its heritage, but the actor model I didn't think was one of the predecessors, particularly of such prominence. I will believe the claim, however, if someone provides a reference. -- CSTAR 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The intro currently reads:
I'd like to rewrite this to remove the necessity for the two parenthetical statements. Here's my first draft for a rewrite:
In an edit at 20:34, 2 October 2005, 24.128.49.163 ( talk · contribs) made the following changes:
1. "Some people are at first put off by all the parentheses used in Scheme notation." -> "Many people are put off by all the parentheses used in Scheme notation.
2. "after a short period of accommodation the parentheses become unobtrusive" -> "after a period of accommodation the parentheses supposedly become unobtrusive"
3. Addition of two paragraphs describing the syntax of Scheme as "cryptic and unintuitive...therefore relatively hard to learn" Claiming that Scheme program execution speed is limited to "a fraction of the speed of programs written in a modern compiler language." by the mode of implementation. Claiming that the use of Scheme as a good introductory language for computer science is "a myth [that] has been debunked."
Point 1 seems incorrect and ignores the learning curve.
Point 2 is weaseling, "supposedly".
The syntax of Scheme is as a matter of fact on of the simplest of any programming language. The assumption that Scheme cannot be compiled is simply incorrect. No support is given for the claim that the utility of Scheme for introductory computer science has been "debunked."
I have therefore reverted. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
These sections are POV, not to mention unsourced and very subjective. It reads like point->counter-point, where the last counter-point ends up being pro-scheme and in some cases anti-lisp. The disadvantage section itself is more like a "debunking disadvantages" section and it's funny that it's tiny in comparison to the advantages section anyway. I'm not even sure how things like curly/square brackets are an "advantage" over anything. Plus I question adding an "advantages" section in general to any programming language article. Most don't have a "advantages" section and for good reason, because you're not actually comparing it to anything except "every other programming language in existence," which isn't helpful. Nathan J. Yoder 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The hygienic macro system is always built on some low-level facility which provides the full power of non-hygienic macros, including arbitrary syntax-time computations.
What does this mean? That every single Scheme implementation provides unhygienic macros in some way?
As I enjoy programming in Scheme I'm employing that language in writing tools for Wikipedia. The first tool is one that measures the degree of vandalism on popular articles on various Wikipedias by examining edit summaries to recognise probable reverts of vandalism. At the time of writing it recognises vandalism reverts on the English, German, French and Spanish Wikipedias. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the links in the Implementations section seem more like ads than encyclopedia citations. That section looks a bit like a WP:SPAMHOLE; cleanup would be good. — donhalcon ╤ 04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be really cool to upload sound files for the pronounciation of car and cdr. Anyone know how to do this? Ideogram 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have done this. It is way cool. Ideogram 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a box-and-pointer diagram to the explanation for how lists are composed of cons cells. Ideogram 10:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have done this. Ideogram 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Can more be said about ports? I am not familiar with them. Ideogram 23:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There is not much to be said about ports that is not already said in
the article. Quoting
R5RS: "Ports represent input and output devices. To Scheme, an input port is a Scheme object that can deliver characters upon command, while an output port is a Scheme object that can accept characters." read
and write
and the other I/O operations of Scheme operate on ports. They more or less correspond to istream and ostream of
C++. —
Tobias Bergemann
12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
current-input-port
and current-output-port
need not return the port objects corresponding to stdin
and stdout
at all times. Within the dynamic scope of with-input-from-file
or with-output-to-file
a call to current-*-port
would return the port object corresponding to the respective file. —
Tobias Bergemann
13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)how is scheme strongly typed (infobox)? Ideogram 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see the programming language talk page for more discussion of this issue. Ideogram 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs more information about the data types available in scheme. I have been using this page as a scheme reference whenever I am coding; the lack of mention of vectors is something that specifically bothers me. 24.61.12.141 01:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Where does this image come from? We need a fair use rationale if we are to continue using this image. Otherwise, it will have to be removed. Ideogram 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Why delete cdr.ogg? This is a different sound file. Ideogram 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The only necessary thing to change for the GA status is:
The next items will need to be addressed or changed in order to become a FA :
Functions are first-class objects in Scheme. They can be arguments to other functions and be returned by them. They can be assigned to variables. For example a function with two arguments arg1 and arg2 can be defined as
(define fun (lambda (arg1 arg2) ...))
which can be abbreviated as follows:
(define (fun arg1 arg2) ...)
Functions are applied with the following syntax:
(fun value1 value2)
Note that the function being applied is in the first position of the list while the rest of the list contain the arguments. The apply
function will take the first argument and apply it to a given list of arguments, so the previous function call can also be written as
(apply fun (list value1 value2))
1 (define fun (lambda (arg1 arg2) ...))
2 (define (fun arg1 arg2) ...)
3 (fun value1 value2)
4 (apply fun (list value1 value2))
Functions are first-class objects in Scheme. They can be arguments to other functions and be returned by them. They can be assigned to variables. For example a function with two arguments arg1 and arg2 is defined in line 1 and line 2 is an abbreviation of it. Line 3 shows how functions are applied. Though it should be noted that the function being applied is in the first position of the list while the rest of the list contain the arguments. The apply function will take the first argument and apply it to a given list of arguments, so the previous function call can also be written as seen on line 4.
Nice article though that I would like to see more written like prose than a list or coding. Lincher 00:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have Good article status, to reach Featured article status the main obstacle is the lack of citations. I have tagged all the statements that need citing. Ideogram 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The info box is supposed to contain "major" implementations. I have trouble believing that all of the implementations listed are "major". -- Ideogram 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Scheme programming language → Scheme (programming language) – Conformance with WP naming conventions LotLE× talk
The page was moved. Move discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages/Renaming poll
I would have expected to see some hint as to where it's most used currently - embedded systems? teaching children? e-commerce sites? games programming? networked clusters? - I would guess that people exist that would argue that it's The Best Language for all of the above, but where is is Actually Used Most.... -- Snori 06:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
to compile on Allegro CL." is hardly resounding support for chalking that one up to Scheme - just looking a little like it is a far too weak criterion to use. -- Gwern (contribs) 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand the object orientation bit - I see that as mostly an example of regular (transparent) data structures, but the example shows no encapsulation, polymorphism, classes (not really required), only a little object and method call/message passing style.
For it to be "object oriented", I'd expect some kind of behaviour being stored in the Billy the cat (in a prototype-oriented fashion), mabye a lambda expression which given a cat as a reference print meows 'age' times. I don't want to start a full debate over what object orientation is (the Wikipedia topic is fine), but I think the otherwise good article could be improved this way (and it's been a while since I last Schemed, so...)
--Jespersm
(define (make-cat name) (lambda (message) (case message ((say-name) (lambda () name)) ((set-name) (lambda (new-name) (set! name new-name))) (else (error "Bad message sent to a cat"))))) (define bill (make-cat "Bill")) (display ((bill 'say-name))) (newline) ((bill 'set-name) "George") (display ((bill 'say-name))) (newline)
Why was the implementations section removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.171.59 ( talk • contribs)
This is a good article, as it describes the language thoroughly and in detail without becoming overly long. I would like to know, though: what is Scheme used for, most commonly? That was my biggest question after looking through the article. If anybody wants to add a "usage" section, or something like that, that would be great! I'm sure there are good applications of Scheme, I just don't know what they are... Cherry Cotton 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the archive? If it's not around any more, then I propose that the template's deleted. Angus Lepper 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Scheme is described as multi-paradigm, but the article does not say which ones (other than functional), and scheme is not listed at Multi-paradigm_programming_language. I'm a scheme newbie so i can't fix it. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the recent edits to the definition of this function, am I the only one to think we need to come up with some consensus as to the formatting of it? My personal preference would be pretty similar to how it is currently, but have no strong feeling any way — other than that it should stick as something, rather than switch every few hours. Angus Lepper( T, C, D) 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've written a draft for a Wikipedia page for the Ikarus Scheme implementation. However, I have a minor conflict of interest. I personally know the author of Ikarus as we are both graduate students in the same department and I have helped test Ikarus, but I have not directly developed any code for Ikarus. In the interests of good faith, I'd like to ask for someone independent to review the article and if it is up to standards, add it to Wikipedia. (If the page needs development before being added, feel free to edit my draft.) Mdmkolbe ( talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving the article to Main space. Not only does it save me from writing a much shorter stub myself, as one of the few aiming-for R6RS Schemes, Ikarus definately deserves a page. -- MarSch 12:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)