Re: point of view on mzscheme's module system

[Matthew Flatt <mflatt@cs.utah.edu>]

Quoting "Gregory Lampshire":
> Is there a common point of view on mzscheme's module system which would help
> me understand it's value relative to the other module implementations in
> other schemes or CL?  Is there a consensus that it's design is a good one
> when employing mzscheme beyond the academic community?

Don't know about a common point of view, but I'll give you my current
opinion:

I'm starting to advocate components and modules as separate, equally
important tools. By "component" I mean a construct for defining and
linking program fragments. By "module" I mean a construct for managing
namespaces and compilation.

Some problems can be solved equally well by either components or
modules. The same is true of classes and components, or functions and
classes. For various reasons, problems suited to components have been
the most interesting to PLT historically; that's why we've concentrated
on components, and on the deficiencies of modules for solving component
problems.

Meanwhile, I'd say that PLT Scheme currently lacks a module system.
Depending on how closely my view matches that of the rest of the
development team, we'll soon have one (as part of the new syntax
effort).

Matthew