[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)