t - Mark writes

Old Man in the Woods Way of Argument Parsing

So, my premise is that only developers use command lines anymore. And after years of corporate enslavement, it's nice to run off to the woods, make a log cabin and all your tools yourself.

Therefore the best way to parse arguments in Scheme is:

(define debug #f)
(define outfile #f)
(define infiles '())

(define (main argv)
  (set! debug (if (member "--debug" argv) #t #f))  ;; boolean
  (set! outfile (if (member "--out" argv) (cadr (member "--out" argv)) #f))  ;; key-value
  (set! infiles (if (member "--" argv) (cdr (member "--" argv)) #f))  ;; all after --
  (unless outfile (error 'main "No outfile given")) ;; maybe show a whole usage & exit
)

This has some disadvantages. It's only discoverable by reading docs or even code, and you have to write the docs yourself. If you want short args, you have to duplicate lines and maybe set the arg twice.

But it's trivial to set up, you can't really get it wrong, and the amount of effort is appropriate to a developer interface.

(You might complain I'm using globals, you can just change those to let)

For the young over-engineering crowd, there are a variety of arg parsing libraries. And I'm too lazy to demonstrate each of them. But in the set of generates usage, is easy to use, and you'll be able to remember how it works in a year, they all get maybe 1, and need to be 3.

Formatting Strings in Scheme

Most of the time I use primitive display, or print functions:

;; displays a series of args to stdout
(define (print . args) (for-each display args) (flush-output-port) )

;; displays a series of args to stdout, then newline
(define (println . args) (for-each display args) (newline) (flush-output-port) )

;; displays a series of args to given port
(define (fprint port . args) (for-each (λ (x) (display x port)) args) (flush-output-port port) )

;; displays a series of args to given port, then newline
(define (fprintln port . args) (for-each (λ (x) (display x port)) args) (newline port) (flush-output-port port) )

;; displays a series of args to stderr, then newline
(define (errprintln . args)  (let [ (port (current-error-port)) ]
    (for-each (λ (x) (display x port)) args) (newline port) (flush-output-port port)
))

but sometimes I actually need to format things:

(import (prefix (srfi s19 time) tm: ))

(format #f "~8a ~10:d ~20a" name score
    (tm:date->string (tm:current-date) "~Y-~m-~d ~H:~M:~S") )

Common Lisp format works as described in Chez Scheme, using #t/#f for destination, and some other Schemes as well; but most Schemes only have the nearly-useless SRFI 28. I'm aware of cat/fox/etc combinatorial formatters, but they're very verbose.

Chez also has date/time functions, but no formatter, so using SRFI 19 - nicely, SRFI 19 mostly does sane things, it's not like C's strftime.

Adult Engineer Over-Optimization as the Motie Problem

Looking at my Scheme code and the way I customize it, I'm starting to see the real reason evil megacorps (and wannabe evil startups) won't hire even middle-aged programmers or use your favorite weirdo language, they just want young idiots who code Java or Go.

If you think about a standard software career, there's maybe 10 years of a submissive fool badly coding crap languages ^1 like Java, Go ^3, PHP, JavaScript ^4. They just got out of college or self-trained, and can barely copy existing algorithms, let alone think of one for themselves. This is why FizzBuzzTest ^5 is such a good novice coder test: It requires following directions exactly, and slightly competent logic skills, but not much more.

Then maybe 10 years of them being project managers and "architects", running waterfall and GANTT charts; they'll say they're "agile" but then have a giant JIRA repo of "backlog" features which have to be implemented before shipping, weekly 4-hour ~~planning~~ "backlog grooming" meetings, and unrealistic estimates. This is sufficient to build all kinds of horrible vertical prisons of the mind like ~~Azkaban~~ Facebook.

Then they either retire, or are "downsized", and now what? So they work on their own code, do maintenance on old systems, or leave the industry entirely.

If they work on their own, freed of evil megacorp constraints, they're going to end up in something idiosyncratic and expressive, like Scheme, LISP, Forth, or a custom language. Make their own weirdo environment that's perfectly fit to themself, and unusable/unreadable by anyone else.

Case in point, I needed an object model. There's one I like in Gerbil, and Gerbil's blazing fast, but I can't make a full SDL2 library for it yet (Gambit's FFI is hard, I've hit some bugs, and there's a LOT of library to interface to), and I'm using a bunch of other Chickenisms anyway, so I can't really move to it yet. Instead I just made my own simple object libary, with a couple macros to hide the ugly reality behind it:

(test-group "Object"
    (test "Object" 'Object (class-name Object))
    (let [ (obj (@new Object))  (bug #f)  (cow #f)  (duck #f) ]
        (test "Object-to-string" "[Object]" (@call obj 'to-string))

        (define-class Animal Object)
        (define-field Animal 'legs 0)
        (define-field Animal 'color #f)
        (define-method Animal 'init (self legs color)
            (set! (@field self 'legs) legs)
            (set! (@field self 'color) color) )
        (define-method Animal 'speak (self)
            (sprintf "The ~A ~A with ~A legs says " (@field self 'color) (class-name (@class self)) (@field self 'legs)) )

        (set! bug (@new Animal 6 "green"))
        (test "bug-legs" 6 (@field bug 'legs))
        (test "bug-color" "green" (@field bug 'color))
        (test "Bug speak" "The green Animal with 6 legs says " (@call bug 'speak))

        (define-class Cow Animal)
        (define-method Cow 'init (self color)
            (@super self 'init 4 color) )
        (define-method Cow 'speak (self)
            (string-append (@super self 'speak) "MOO!") )
        (set! cow (@new Cow "brown"))

        ;; second class to make sure classes don't corrupt shared superclass
        (define-class Duck Animal)
        (define-method Duck 'init (self color)
            (@super self 'init 2 color) )
        (define-method Duck 'speak (self)
            (string-append (@super self 'speak) "QUACK!") )
        (set! duck (@new Duck "black"))

        (test "Cow speak" "The brown Cow with 4 legs says MOO!" (@call cow 'speak))
        (test "Cow to string" "[Cow color:brown;legs:4]" (@call cow 'to-string))
        (test "Duck speak" "The black Duck with 2 legs says QUACK!" (@call duck 'speak))
        (test "Duck to string" "[Duck color:black;legs:2]" (@call duck 'to-string))

        (test "instance-of?" #t (instance-of? cow Cow))
        (test "instance-of? parent" #t (instance-of? cow Animal))
        (test "instance-of? grandparent" #t (instance-of? cow Object))
        (test "instance-of? cousin-false" #f (instance-of? cow Duck))
        (test "instance-of? not an obj-false" #f (instance-of? "wtf" Cow))
    )
)

The implementation code's not much longer than the tests, but it's not quite done for me to show off; I need to switch my macros into non-hygeinic forms so I can get rid of the (self) in define-method, and introduce an Objective-C-like _cmd field for self-reflection, and message-not-understood handling. There's always more tinkering to do.

Which is great for me, but makes my code an undocumented (mostly) new language, unusable by anyone normal. A giant pile of crap Java program, no matter how old, can be "worked on" (more crap piled on top) by any teenage Bro Coder.

All of which brought to mind The Mote in God's Eye, where the Motie Engineers over-optimize everything into a tangled mess, and the Watchmaker vermin are even worse, wiring up everything to everything to make new devices. The threat posed by and solution to Scheme programmers, in your usual authoritarian megacorp scenario, is similar to Watchmakers.

^1 Swift is intended to fit this niche much more than weirdo expressive Smalltalk+C Objective-C was, BDSM ^2 to prevent one from writing "bad" code, but it's not there yet; the reality of low-level software dev can't be simplified as much as Apple wants, and their C++ developers weren't up to the task anyway.

^2 Bondage-Domination-Sado-Masochism; aka strict type systems and code flow analysis, that prevent one from writing "bad" code at the cost of annotating everything with types instead of doing useful work. I'm not kink-shaming people who do that for sex, only those who do it to their own software.

^3 Rob Pike has openly said they can't give a powerful language to newbie Googlers, they mostly just know Java, C, C++, which is why Go is so limited and generic.

^4 Oddly, JS is basically a LISP with really shitty syntax. It's easy to make trivial, broken junk in it, but it's also powerful and expressive if you're an old maniac who understands the Self-based object system.

^5 Oh, fine, but only so I can demonstrate something:

(define (fizzbuzz-test i n s)  (if (zero? (modulo i n))  (begin (display s) #t)  #f) )
(define (fizzbuzz i)
    (unless (any identity (list (fizzbuzz-test i 3 'Fizz) (fizzbuzz-test i 5 'Buzz)))  (display i))
    (newline) )
(for (i 1 100) (fizzbuzz i))

Totally different structure from the usual loop-if-else repetition and hardcoding of everything, because Scheme encourages coding in small pieces. Of course I wrote my own for macro which expands to a named let loop; there's many like it but this one is mine. More Motie engineering.

A Scheme of Gerbils Runnin' in a Wheel

Chicken's mediocre performance is causing me problems, so I'm taking yet another language tour/spike.

Looking at Gerbil Scheme, as a faster Scheme and as a bonus it's closer to R7RS. It has far less library support than Chicken, but does have a FFI, and compiles to a native binary through C, so I really don't need too many libraries.

Instead of the #!key #!optional #!rest keywords used in Chicken and some others, Gerbil uses a literal template style for functions:

;; Chicken: (define (foo a #!key (b 'bar) #!optional (c "see?") #!rest rest)
;; Gerbil:
(def (foo a b: (b 'bar) (c "see?") . rest)
    (print "a=" a " b=" b " c=" c " rest=" rest "\n")
)
(foo "Mark" 1 b: "bees!" 'what) ;; note out-of-order optional & keyword
;; a=Mark b=bees! c=1 rest=what

I like this style better, but I dislike the "def" keyword (which uses the enhanced lambda that does this) instead of "define" which uses "lambda%" (traditional lambda).

Gerbil uses [] for list construction, and {} for method dispatch, so goodbye to the nicely distinguishable braces I was using in Chicken. The spec says implementations can do what they want with those symbols, but I wish they wouldn't. Ah, well. I'll add a shitload more whitespace and some comments and it'll be fine.

The struct/object system in Gerbil is pretty nice, they're slightly upgraded records, but there's an (@ obj field) syntax instead of (MyClass-field obj), and (defmethod {mymethod MyClass} ...) creates a polymorphic {mymethod obj args} which finds the right method for any object, which is especially useful for inheritance.

I tried doing some VT100 graphics just to proof-of-concept, but it's doing something to the terminal, such that the same escape codes which work in Python don't clear the screen fully in Gerbil. After a short losing battle with stty and termcap, I give up on that and I'll jump right to writing a C FFI to SDL, because in 2019 that's easier than writing to a console.

Daily reminder that everything we have made since 1984 is overcomplicated junk. On an Atari 800, this took a few seconds to type, and you could start coding a nice UI instantly:

Alas, we live in a fallen world, so this is going to be trouble. Here's my Gerbil FFI template so far:

package: myffi

(import
    :std/foreign
)

(export #t)

(begin-ffi
    ;; names of all Scheme wrappers to expose
    (chello)

(c-declare #<<CDECLEND

#include <stdio.h>

int chello(void) {
    printf("Hello this is C!\n");
    return 1;
}

CDECLEND
)

    (define-c-lambda chello () int "chello")

) ;; begin-ffi


; TODO for constants: (define FOO ((c-lambda () int "___result = FOO;")))

(define (main . args)
    (chello)
)

Gerbil has a Scheme-based build system, but I'm a caveman so I make another build.zsh:

#!/bin/zsh

function usage {
    echo "Usage: build.zsh MAIN.scm [LIBS] || -?"
    exit 1
}

if [[ $# -eq 0 || "$1" == "-?" || "$1" == "--help" ]]; then
    usage
fi

mkdir -p bin

main=`basename $1 .scm`

gxc -exe -static -O -o bin/$main "$@" || exit 1
echo "Built bin/$main"

Now:

% ./build.zsh myffi.scm
Built bin/myffi
% bin/myffi
Hello this is C!

Hooray! Unconditional success! Only took all afternoon and a half-pot of coffee!

Now I "merely" have to wrap all of SDL (well, just the parts I need) and get linking working and oh sweet merciless Cthulhu. And I still won't know how much this'll help my performance until I'm days into it. But, the first step is the hardest.

Scheme Record to RecordType

So, in "classic" Scheme (up to R5RS), there were no structs/records/classes. You could fake them with a Vector and writing all the accessor methods by hand, but it sucked.

SRFI-9 added a very minimalist record type with a lot of repetition, and no inheritance, though at least SRFI-17 fixed setters.

R6RS (as implemented in Chez Scheme) added a much more powerful system with inheritance and constructor methods, but half the Scheme community hates nice things and voted it down. There's a half-assed reimplementation of R6RS in SRFI-99 and sequels, but it still doesn't have read/write mechanisms. R7RS still only ships with SRFI-9 built in. Unbelievable mess.

Chicken has a convenient define-record macro, and read/write methods, but by default uses SRFI-9, and hides SRFI-99 in an egg; so chicken-install -s srfi-99 and then (import srfi-99) everywhere, and then write a ton of boilerplate for every type. So I just automated it with Python (doing string parsing in Scheme is more annoying):

schemeRecordToRecordType

Documentation is in the module help (or just read the source, Luke). I use it by writing the Chicken macro (define-record Point x y), then at shell:

% pbpaste|schemeRecordToRecordType.py|pbcopy

And paste back:

;; (define-record Point x y)
(define-record-type Point #t #t
    (x)
    (y)
)
(define-reader-ctor 'Point make-Point)
(define-record-printer (Point p out)
    (format out "#,(Point ~S ~S)"
        (Point-x p) (Point-y p) 
))
; module exports:
; make-Point Point? Point-x Point-y

Note that none of this really gets me an "object-oriented" system, but records are sufficient for most programs, and inheritance works with define-record-type. There are OOP systems but I don't especially like any of them so I'm passing on them for now.