zig is on its way to improving compilation times in its own pace and does so for the benefit of the project and everyone involved, so what is left to care for about bun by anthropic’s past?

the upcoming releases are expected to provide a solution to this “dispatch is comptime-known, but still dynamic” problem, and drop the loses in efficiency.

stack traces are esoteric and error messages entirely unhelpful,

documentation masquerades as deep but is indeed inconsistent and prosaic, mixing styles of reference, explanation, and how-to willy-nilly, (compare with Dybvig’s The Scheme Programming Language, which is focused and consistent, and it takes no time to get your answers; there’s just no method to guile and guix manuals), i hate it big time,

there’s big gaps in documentation (especially with Guix – there’s literally zero information about `define-record-type*` which is used everywhere in its codebase; admittedly, not scheme related, but still),

the cli requires too much memorization,

most modules are not named, but numbered, ie, instead of something like `(base list)`, you get `(srfi srfi-1)`, so you need to either memorize, or go through the info pages for each procedure you need to import, which means you also need to know the exact names for the procedures you need beforehand,

there’s like 4 ways to define a record, each with a different feature set and incompatibilities,

etc.

these are the reasons i find it hard to use.

to respond to the content of the article, the different neurotype idea is off, because scheme allows you very well to express sequences of operations; the ecosystem of APIs may not cater to this tho. although if it was rephrased into “scheme emphasizes symbolic manipulations, as opposed to operating a machine”, i would agree

edit: thanks for the responses!

the way you express it says that the breadth of the effect of your choices is an essential parameter in considering your processes. I dislike this position due to its administrative, almost corporate undertone; I do understand it and ascribe to it myself in administrative matters, but not the personal.

but look at it this way: you won't change much by feeding homeless animals or birds, or by planting a couple of trees, but it may still bring great pleasure to do it. one way that i see it differ from permacomputing is that the feedback / perception of its effect is more immediate; or that permacomputing is following a more abstract, mediated value. but both are about finding some joy and meaning in doing something purely out of care. if not pleasure, it at least gives a little framework, a heuristic when making decisions.