PLT Scheme’s user interface library is called Mr Ed. It is used to provide DrScheme to thousands of computers running Windows, Mac OS, and UNIX. It “just works”, and does so well; it is a fine graphics toolkit. MrEd Designer aims to make Mr Ed even easier to use!
Peter Ivanyi now maintains this application.
MrEd Designer 2.1.2 is released; it now supports tab-panels.
In MrEd Designer 2.1.3:
- tooltips are added for the main buttons
- the no-border style for the tab-panels is fixed.
At one time or another you have probably heard the claim made that since you can utilize closures while programming in Lisp, there is no need to utilize an object system. That claim is sort of a half-truth. While closures are the language construct that allow you to create objects, they certainly don’t provide you with all of the object oriented programming language features that you would expect. Instead, you need to implement those features yourself.
The question was posed on the PLT discussion list. Some very good points were made about the issues you must address when implementing such an object system yourself, along with a pointer detailing how the issues are addressed in PLT Scheme.
This post on the PLT discussion list reminded me of me. There was a point where my interest in programming languages was more about what you could do with a language, without much of an emphasis on the why you would want to do such a thing. While you can do a lot of interesting things in different languages, there is often more value when there is reason, or vision, of why you would do those things. From my perspective, most languages have, at one time or another had some guiding vision or force behind them.
Eiffel has Bertrand Meyer saying “Everything is an object, and be static about it” and C++ has Bjarne Stroustrup saying “Keep it fast, keep it generic”, Scheme “Programming languages should be designed not by piling feature …”. Ruby has Yukihiro Matsumoto saying “It makes sense to me, if you don’t like it, see you later!”. Consequently there are a lot of really “neat” things you can do in Ruby, but it is not always obvious to me why you might want to do those things (I’m excluding the obvious ones so give me a break on those). Mats knows, and if you don’t “get it” oh well! The vision, or reason, extends all the way from the macrocosm of the entire language to the microcosm of its individual features.
Programming language features are there for a reason. While I will always find individual features interesting in terms of what you can do, one of my goals as a programmer is to always study with enough discipline to understand why such features exist.
As a programmer it is your duty to understand those features before utilizing them. Matthias’ reply to this post provides an excellent example of the conciseness and clarity that are the fruits of such discipline.
If you are going to utilize the Object Oriented paradigm for implementing your system, you ought to do yourself a favor and learn the Eiffel programming language. Why?
Take all of the things that are not included in your statically-typed OO language of choice because they are “too hard to understand”, and visit them in Eiffel. Not only does it have all of those features, but it makes them easy both to understand and utilize.
Read about type conversion, for example. What a wonderful language feature. You can even use tuples!
You will be left scratching your head, wondering why no one else has features like this (among many others).
Eiffel is really a gem of a language!
In response to this excellent blog post by Dave Herman, Jay McCarthy pointed the reader to this interesting paper about creating a language construct that allows you to modularly redefine how your code (that you may or may not have written) gets evaluated (in other words, nonstandard interpretation).
is a powerful and useful construct that supports such tasks as tracing, security logging, sandboxing, error checking, profiling, code instrumentation and metering, run-time code patching, and resource monitoring.
Obviously, these things aren’t new features. You can probably already perform nonstandard interpretation using your language of choice.
The interesting thing about this approach is that rather than performing compile time environment or code manipulation, a new language feature is applied to perform the non standard interpretation at runtime.
While both will get you to the place that you want to go; only the latter offers you an opportunity to build a conceptual framework for understand how you reached your destination. Neat!
Here are two places to start with distributed programming in Scheme:
Dimitris Vyzovitis’s patch for revision 8983 (of trunk) in PLT Scheme
- Dimitris’ patch for additional mailbox functionality.
I’m pretty sure this patch has made it into the main source branch.
Last year some of my friends and I both attended and presented at Barcamp Milwaukee. When you have a bunch of people coming together to discuss things about which they are really passionate, well, you can’t beat it. It was a lot of fun, I met a lot of wonderful people, and even made some new friends. You can watch a video about that event here.
I just heard the news that BarCamp Madison #2 is getting lined up. Here are the details:
The Home Page
The Google Group
Enscript is such a versatile and helpful tool.
Here is how I use it to pretty print Scheme code:
enscript --landscape --columns=2 --highlight=scheme --borders --line-numbers --output=.ps .ss
Here is the direct link for the GnuWin32 download of Enscript.
Here are my new favorite settings for rendering code with this excellent program:
enscript --word-wrap --underlay=Underlay --ul-gray=0.9 --line-numbers --
landscape --highlight=scheme --columns=2 --borders --output=test.ps C:\collects\wisdomandwonder\resume\latex-renderer.sls
A while back I listened to an interview that Software Engineering Radio did with Richard P. Gabriel.
Gabriel is well spoken, has a valuable historical perspective, and the interview has a lot of interesting bits that folks new to Lisp may never before have heard.
On his website, Dan Bensen has got a page set up with links to a whole bunch of excellent articles on programming. It wouldn’t make sense for me to link to them individually. Thanks Dan!