Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Perchance to Scheme (2016)

hardmath123.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#51

Post by notduncansmith »

JadeNB wrote: post #46
baldfat wrote: post #31

Racket is not academic to me. Racket equals programming fun and really is a joy to use. Academic seems to not convey the feeling one gets when using Racket. To me Racket is really the future of what languages will look like, a language to create your own DSL. The greatest strength of Racket is its documentation. Secondly the way Racket actually teaches you how to be a better programmer. I personally grew the most due…

> Racket equals programming fun and really is a joy to use. Academic seems to not convey the feeling one gets when using Racket. As an academic, it makes me very sad to hear these qualities, that I feel describe my work, used as the opposite of 'academic'.

There are a wide variety of experiences to be had at the academy.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#52

Post by gglitch »

linuxlizard wrote: post #44

Does the sheer amount of cool stuff out there feel overwhelming to anyone else? I want to learn this and this and this and that and this and that thing and this other thing over there.

I'm probably halfway through my career and still feel like a perpetual beginner because of this syndrome. It has brought me many material and intellectual pleasures and tangible benefits, including a decent living; but I increasingly feel like if I want to progress in my career, it's time to specialize a great deal in a tiny subset of my interests. There's real power in being able to say No to things, and real wisdom in knowing what to say No to. I fear I lack both of these! It's vexing in the extreme.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#53

Post by JadeNB »

notduncansmith wrote: post #51
JadeNB wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Racket equals programming fun and really is a joy to use. Academic seems to not convey the feeling one gets when using Racket. As an academic, it makes me very sad to hear these qualities, that I feel describe my work, used as the opposite of 'academic'.

There are a wide variety of experiences to be had at the academy.

> There are a wide variety of experiences to be had at the academy.

Agreed!—but the use of the term 'academic' in this way suggests it's a universal experience. (I've never heard anyone use 'academic' to mean exciting and invigourating intellectual exploration!) I don't argue with it, as I know that's the way language goes; it just makes me sad, and, I imagine, shapes the expectations, and then to some extent even the experiences, of my students.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#54

Post by gnulinux »

linuxlizard wrote: post #44

Does the sheer amount of cool stuff out there feel overwhelming to anyone else? I want to learn this and this and this and that and this and that thing and this other thing over there.

Because of this I can't focus on anything because learning anything feels like it has infinite opportunity cost, spirals into anxiety. My irrational response is to watch Netflix because if I were instead learning X, I would be concerned that I'm not learning Y0, ..., YN for a very large N.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#55

Post by gpderetta »

drmeister wrote: post #30

Alternatively - you can choose to program in Common Lisp - an industrial strength language that has been demonstrated in large projects like the QPX flight search engine (Google Flights). For anyone who doesn't know - a big difference that Common Lisp brings to the table is that it has separate namespaces for variables and functions. This may not sound like much but it makes it much easier to write macros (code that…

>much easier to write macros (code that writes code) and facilitates compile-time computing

Isn't this a non-issue in scheme as it has hygienic macros?

Note: my only exposition to lisp is via elisp, so I might not know what I'm talking about.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#56

Post by stcredzero »

Scheme, on the other hand, is very loosely specified. This is a good thing: the core language is so small that the entire standard fits on about 50 pages...It’s not nebulous, it’s simply minimalist. This is why Scheme is more of an idea than a language.

Smalltalk wound up being quite loosely specified. This, combined with the small "core," enabling single developers rolling their own, resulted in a high degree of fragmentation of the overall language community.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#57

Post by bjoli »

drmeister wrote: post #30

Alternatively - you can choose to program in Common Lisp - an industrial strength language that has been demonstrated in large projects like the QPX flight search engine (Google Flights). For anyone who doesn't know - a big difference that Common Lisp brings to the table is that it has separate namespaces for variables and functions. This may not sound like much but it makes it much easier to write macros (code that…

The function and variable namespace difference is a matter of taste to me. I prefer naming my variables lst to having to use #' and funcall, and the extra fuzz that hygienic macros bring is generally not a very big problem once macros become complex enough.

What CL brings over scheme is a fantastic object system. The Scheme copies are half-assed in comparison, especially considering how well-integrated CLOS is.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#58

Post by baldfat »

JadeNB wrote: post #46
baldfat wrote: post #31

Racket is not academic to me. Racket equals programming fun and really is a joy to use. Academic seems to not convey the feeling one gets when using Racket. To me Racket is really the future of what languages will look like, a language to create your own DSL. The greatest strength of Racket is its documentation. Secondly the way Racket actually teaches you how to be a better programmer. I personally grew the most due…

> Racket equals programming fun and really is a joy to use. Academic seems to not convey the feeling one gets when using Racket. As an academic, it makes me very sad to hear these qualities, that I feel describe my work, used as the opposite of 'academic'.

I was faculty at a University and I still find the word Academic to be negative connotation and was an inaccurate statement on Racket

Define - Academic

1. c: very learned but inexperienced in practical matters 1. d: based on formal study especially at an institution of higher learning 3. a: theoretical, speculative 3. b: having no practical or useful significance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academic

Couldn't find a positive way to spin Academic as used by the article.

Re: Perchance to Scheme (2016)

#59

Post by soegaard »

stcredzero wrote: post #56

Scheme, on the other hand, is very loosely specified. This is a good thing: the core language is so small that the entire standard fits on about 50 pages...It’s not nebulous, it’s simply minimalist. This is why Scheme is more of an idea than a language. Smalltalk wound up being quite loosely specified. This, combined with the small "core," enabling single developers rolling their own, resulted in a high degree of fra…

I noticed that quote as well.

Odd thing to call RnRS Scheme loosely specified. The RnRS spec is extremely well-written - and it even includes a semantics.

Now "Scheme" used to mean "a Scheme like language" is of course loosely specified - but that's another story.

Post reply on HN