Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
langnostic.blogspot.com
Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#2[deleted]
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#3This post is not about Yegge. It's a little comparison of Common Lisp and Scheme (Plt Racket). I think a post with such a bad title should not be read no matter its content but YMMV.
This is all it contains about Steve Yegge: The quote from Yegge goes something like "Most newcomers independently come to the same conclusion; Scheme is the better language, but Common Lisp is the right choice for production work." Bottom line, I remember disagreeing a long time ago, but I've uh... independently come to the same conclusion.
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#4It also always returns its result, and doesn't have the option of printing to standard-out (you have to use printf for that)
(format t "hello world")
From PCL: "T is shorthand for the stream STANDARD-OUTPUT, while NIL causes FORMAT to generate its output to a string, which it then returns."
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#5It also always returns its result, and doesn't have the option of printing to standard-out (you have to use printf for that) (format t "hello world") From PCL: "T is shorthand for the stream STANDARD-OUTPUT , while NIL causes FORMAT to generate its output to a string, which it then returns."
He was complaining that the format in Scheme (and in PLT Racket) doesn't have that CL feature.
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#6This post is not about Yegge. It's a little comparison of Common Lisp and Scheme (Plt Racket). I think a post with such a bad title should not be read no matter its content but YMMV. This is all it contains about Steve Yegge: The quote from Yegge goes something like "Most newcomers independently come to the same conclusion; Scheme is the better language, but Common Lisp is the right choice for production work." Botto…
I think it also tries to copy Yegge's writing style :)
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#7Whether Common Lisp or Racket comes out in front in a comparison, it always strikes me as amazing what the Racket people get done given their manpower. I don't know how large the team exactly is, and how many external contributors they have. But looking at their site, they have everything from a modern Scheme with libraries, a web server, modern packaging, experimental sub-languages, a module contract system, and so on. And that's besides doing their academic work.
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#8When did Yegge die?
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#9I'm deeply curious where Clojure would fall in this comparison. Is Compojure as suave as Hunchentoot? Is string formatting just as flexible? In practice, is it a pain to have to fail over to Java library documentation when Clojure doesn't suffice, versus having plentiful but scattered docs for a single language?
Re: Yegge Strikes Back from the Grave
#10I almost can't believe the #3, restarting a webserver for minor changes? That reeks of static, batch-language oriented solution. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with static batch-languages, but I wouldn't have thought Scheme is one.