Live data from Hacker News

Poll: Which programming language do you plan on learning next?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Poll: Which programming language do you plan on learning next?

#51
post #32

Haskell. I tried three times so far, and stalled each time once I reached monad transformers. Scratch that: I consistently stalled at understanding monads. I understand the Maybe monad, but I couldn't wrap my head around the implementation of the State monad. Then I looked at monad transformers, and they made my eyes cross. (If Haskell's syntax was just a tiny bit less jarring to my Lisp-addled eyes, maybe I'd try mo…

Have you seen this? http://uebb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~magr/pub/Transformers.en.html

It's the best intro to monad transformers I've come across.

Re: Poll: Which programming language do you plan on learning next?

#56
post #23
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the same thing here - unique languages with distinctive paradigms, deserving of separate choices.

My thought process was, if Python and/or Ruby is on the to learn list, they would look at both, but go with one of them.

Ruby and Python have some similarities but not that many. I'm getting pretty good at Ruby myself and will confess to not knowing python that well but the endless comparisons on the various blogs and forums make it very clear that these are very different languages.

Re: Poll: Which programming language do you plan on learning next?

#58
post #23
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the same thing here - unique languages with distinctive paradigms, deserving of separate choices.

My thought process was, if Python and/or Ruby is on the to learn list, they would look at both, but go with one of them.

Ruby and Python are definitely different languages. May want to check with the creators on this one.

Re: Poll: Which programming language do you plan on learning next?

#59
post #18
post #14

Scheme (does this fit under LISP?)

No it does not... but this is my choice.

I'd say yes, because Scheme is a Lisp and I don't know any specific language that's called just Lisp except perhaps the original one by McCarthy. As far as I know Common Lisp and Scheme are the two Lisp languages in usage today.

Re: Poll: Which programming language do you plan on learning next?

#60
post #25

It's sort of a combination of the two; Lisp Flavored Erlang, for real time control.

which language are you talking about?

Robert Virding's Lisp Flavored Erlang, which, among other things, does away with records, neatens up the syntax, and enabled Lisp style macros, but is still built on Erlang, and still contains it's high quality pattern matching.

Virding is one of the original contributors of Erlang.

http://groups.google.com/group/erlang-questions/browse_threa...

Copied here:

I have finally released LFE, Lisp Flavoured Erlang, which is a lisp syntax front-end to the Erlang compiler. Code produced with it is compatible with "normal" Erlang code. The is an LFE-mode for Emacs and the lfe-mode.el file is include in the distribution. Most things seem to work but some things have not been done yet:

- The interpreter does handle recursive letrecs, binaries, receive or try. - There is no lisp shell. - Documentation!

Yet. The system will be updated as new features are added. This is the 1st release so there is much left to do.

I have include the existing documentation lfe_guide.txt in this mail. There are a number of LFE test files and a version of the LFE interpreter written in LFE as examples of code. There are also a number of issues which need to be decided for the next version and I have included a file lfe_issues.txt which describe them in this mail. Both files are in the distribution.

Note that while this this lisp has been inspired by Scheme (one of the issues) it is a NOT Scheme, it is Erlang with a lisp syntax and many nice lisp features. Not for that matter is it Common Lisp. In fact features of the Erlang engine mean that it is actually impossible to implement full Scheme of CL. No, they shouldn't be changed or added.

It was quite writing Erlang code in lisp and I could easily consider using a lisp syntax for Erlang. I suppose it depends where your preferences lye. It was also easy to get into the traditional lisp habit of using long names for everything which I personally think is not a Good Thing. Perhaps we should do AFE, Arc Flavoured Erlang, instead? Although I think they have gone too far and missed what makes programs easy to read.

Macros are very nice, and it is easy to generate LFE code, which is one of the benefits of lisp syntax.

LFE also shows that it would probably be possible to write other front-ends inspired by other languages, though why anyone should want to I don't know. Perhaps back to a real Prolog syntax again.

Post reply on HN