Typed Python?

[chain_lube at hotmail.com]

Ville Vainio <ville at spammers.com> wrote in message news:<du76592u9lk.fsf at mozart.cc.tut.fi>...

> 
> Frankly, there is no real reason to learn Scheme. 

I have to beg to differ. I am using Bigloo (Scheme) for 3 years now
for pursuing my research PhD in physics (atmospheric physics and
chemistry).

Believe it or not: I had to translate all my former Python programs to
Bigloo because I was at the point where I was not any longer happy
with Python. Numarray was such a big mess (yes I have some experience
with similar things: IDL, Matlab and especially Yorick) and Python is
simply to depressing.

Bigloo gives me all that what I need and what makes me happy. So
saying Scheme is as worthless experience calls for troubles.

What makes me happy:

- I can give types and that /tremendously/ improves readability and
catches type erros but at the same time I am /always/ using all the
freedom of Scheme programming.

- Bigloo has pattern matching

- Object orientied programming (one can even create new types)

- Foreign function interface is very sound and very easy to use (no
need of SWIG)

- Bee development environment

- I do not use the following but they are there: Java backends
(automatically produced from Scheme code) and .NET integration

- And yes: the compiler: ./a.out

- I use it on: Mac OSX, Sun OS (I am steering, post- and preprocessing
there Fortran code with the help of Bigloo), and Linux.

- And much, much more

- disadvantages: every Scheme implemenation is a unique
implementation. However, Python is also a unique implementation ...

Bigloo is very sound and I wouldn't mind to use it in any production
code in any of my "imaginative" companies.

Scheme works so well out for me, though, my knowledge of Scheme is
very shallow but it makes me happy to program in (as opposed to
Python).


Fensterbrett