11–20 of 172 posts
> Of course, to be completely fair about my toolkit, standard Scheme can sometimes lack the heavyweight, “batteries-included” ecosystem required for massive enterprise production compared to the JVM. I was thinking the whole time, "this person would _love_ Clojure".
I learned Scheme before Haskell and as much as I enjoyed the experience, I still wouldn't reach for Haskell first. It's pretty much limited to my xmonad configuration.
If you know lisp, just reach for Coalton instead of Haskell
Coalton has some evolution to go before that, but it is good and flexible enough.
[1] From Toward Safe, Flexible, and Efficient Software in Common Lisp at the European Lisp Symposium, "[Coalton] has been used for the past 5 or so years [...] first in quantum computing and now a serious defense application." https://youtu.be/xuSrsjqJN4M&t=9m14s
> Actually, in my opinion, Scheme (and Lisp) allows you to express complex systems and problem domains in more simple terms than any other language can. Short article. Worth reading. But all I swallowed was this one sentence. Its the sytax. If you like semicolons, thats why you like Pascal-like languages.
For all practical purposes, the syntax of Lisp isn't just a cosmetic choice, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coalton has some evolution to go before that, but it is good and flexible enough.
What evolution in particular do you think? The developers use it for commercial products in quantum computing and defense [1]. That doesn't mean it's done in some complete language ecosystem sense (which is discussed in [1], and one could argue Haskell also never feels "finished"), but it also doesn't seem like an unfinished hobby project. Given that it's embedded in Common Lisp, there's always a way to fill in the l…
I agree with you further and you did an excellent promotional comment for Coalton and CL; keep doing that please. I have said many times here before that I did not like my time away from CL and Coalton makes it even better.
I learned Scheme before Haskell and as much as I enjoyed the experience, I still wouldn't reach for Haskell first. It's pretty much limited to my xmonad configuration.
I have written a very large codebase in Scheme (gambit) and in the end I really, really, wanted a type system to catch bugs.
In case you're into machine learning, I'm also building something similar - a tensor-first, native Clojure-like ML framework.
Either with S9 Scheme for quick fun (it has Unix sockets and ncurses :D ) or Chicken Scheme for completeneless (R5RS/R7RS-small + modules), I always have fun with both.
Oh, and well, Forth, too, but more like a puzzle (altough it shines to teach you that you can do a lot with a fixed point). Hint: write helpers for rationals -a/b where a is an integer and b a non-zero integer- and complex numbers by placing two items in the stack for each case (for rat helpers you need four (a/b [+-*/] c/d) .
You can have a look at qcomplex.tcl (either online or installed) as an example on how can it work even under JimTCL itself by just sourcing that file. Magic, complex numbers under jimsh thanks to the algebraic properties. So, you can implement the same for yourself in some Forths, even under EForth for Muxleq. Useless? It depends, under an ESP32 it can be damn fast, faster than Micropython.
I tried some ML language once, it's difficult even to write a basic factorial example, which in Scheme I could do it iteratively and recursively with ease. Either with S9 Scheme for quick fun (it has Unix sockets and ncurses :D ) or Chicken Scheme for completeneless (R5RS/R7RS-small + modules), I always have fun with both. Oh, and well, Forth, too, but more like a puzzle (altough it shines to teach you that you can d…
Racket:
> (define (fact n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(* n (fact (- n 1)))))
> (fact 6)
720
# let rec fact = function
| 1 -> 1
| n when n > 1 -> n * (fact (n - 1))
in fact 6;;
- : int = 720