Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's all Scheme under the hood, why can't it be backported easily?
This is valid R sum(1:10) This is also valid R: (sum (1:10))
Just wrapping whatever in parentheses does not make a lisp.
Chicken Scheme 5.0
71–80 of 89 posts
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#72Chicken is an instance of "Mysteryware".
* Who created it?
* Why didn't them pick one of the other implementations?
* What's the history / background?
Could not find any of the answers to those questions after a few minutes of Googling around, nor in Wikipedia [1].
Closest I got is this page [2] that list "Felix Winkelmann" as the top core contributor. I'm guessing he is the author since the name rings a bell (after dabbling a bit with scheme and comparing implementations, so maybe I read his name somewhere, probably right here at HN).
Regarding the "why", I also think I read somewhere that the idea was to implement scheme using the ideas on "Cheney on the M.T.A." [3] and later the project took off, but I don't know the details... did I just make this up? :-p... damn, really need to improve my note taking process.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHICKEN_(Scheme_implementation...
2: http://wiki.call-cc.org/maintainers
3: http://wiki.c2.com/?CheneyOnTheMta
EDIT: Found it! I think most I remember about Chicken history I read from these blog posts:
* https://spin.atomicobject.com/2013/05/02/chicken-scheme-part...
* https://spin.atomicobject.com/2013/06/19/chicken-scheme-spoc...
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently, this comment is heavily downvoted, which I do not understand. If Julia warrants mentioning as having a lispy core, then it’s at least as valid to point out R’s deeply lisp-inspired (and technical implementation based) heritage. I mean, scratch the surface on any of the FFI docs, and you’ll see that SEXPRs are right there lurking barely beneath the surface: http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/rcpp.html EDIT:…
> and you’ll see that SEXPRs are right there lurking barely beneath the surface Then why the surface? Why can't we just have a lisp with a good data-science library? Scheme seems the easiest of all the programming languages to me. I bet I can teach Scheme (not including advanced FP stuff though) to anybody faster than any other language although I have never used it to code anything serious (because libraries), I act…
You’re preaching to the choir here.
I’d love to see a data science community around Racket in particular. In fact, you can do quite a lot in Racket today, just with not nearly the libraries and tooling as Python or R.
But as a consolation prize, R is pretty Schemey, and has the best collection of libraries for data around. It’s been a dream for years to figure out a way of making use of more of R from Racket, but time and deadlines keep getting in the way.
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#74Chicken is an instance of "Mysteryware". * Who created it? * Why didn't them pick one of the other implementations? * What's the history / background? Could not find any of the answers to those questions after a few minutes of Googling around, nor in Wikipedia [1]. Closest I got is this page [2] that list "Felix Winkelmann" as the top core contributor. I'm guessing he is the author since the name rings a bell (after…
I had a plastic toy of Feathers McGraw on my desk, the evil penguin (disguised as a chicken!) from the Wallace and Gromit movie, “The Wrong Trousers.” Looking for a preliminary working title for the compiler, I used the first thing that came to my mind that day. I’m somewhat superstitious about names for software projects, and things were progressing well, so I didn’t dare to change the name.
Great!
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#75Is there some lisp that has offers nearly as powerful and fast data processing and tensor algebra facilities like Pandas and Numpy of Python? I would love to use a lisp but am not sure how well are they going to manage with huge 2-3D arrays.
There are multiple Clojure options for high-speed matrix processing. E.g.
https://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/
https://kieranbrowne.com/research/clojure-tensorflow-interop/
https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/api/clojure/index.htmlRe: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guile or Chibi depending on what I want. Guile is about 2mb and seriously fast. Chibi is tiny and not very fasy.
Surprised to see Guile weighing in at 2mb - my experience with it on Linux was a much larger install. What makes the Linux packages so much larger out of curiosity? I profiled it at more like 50-80mb when I compiled it a couple of months ago.
I meant weight as in extra RAM usage for the application I use it in.
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#77Chicken sounds super interesting but I’ve never used it. Anybody have a tutorial(s) on how to get started using chicken? And specially how do you do to 2D graphics with it?
I like Chicken but I still think Racket should be the first one learned, because of the documentation. https://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/
And the free, online textbook How to Design Programs.
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently, this comment is heavily downvoted, which I do not understand. If Julia warrants mentioning as having a lispy core, then it’s at least as valid to point out R’s deeply lisp-inspired (and technical implementation based) heritage. I mean, scratch the surface on any of the FFI docs, and you’ll see that SEXPRs are right there lurking barely beneath the surface: http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/rcpp.html EDIT:…
> and you’ll see that SEXPRs are right there lurking barely beneath the surface Then why the surface? Why can't we just have a lisp with a good data-science library? Scheme seems the easiest of all the programming languages to me. I bet I can teach Scheme (not including advanced FP stuff though) to anybody faster than any other language although I have never used it to code anything serious (because libraries), I act…
Most programmers, esp from ALGOL-like and C-like languages, hate the syntax. Decades have been wasted trying to convince them to overlook it. Clojure was a surprising exception. Whereas many languages that stayed close to languages people were familiar with got adoption.
Better to hide the LISP'y core underneath a syntax similar to a widely deployed language. Julia was a brilliant example that's getting a lot of uptake vs scientific LISP's as predicted.
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#79One of the hard problems in CS is naming things. WHY do scheme implementations decide to name stuff by SRFI numbers? Even if you've been using the language a lot, numbers don't make very much sense. I want to import the standard list library -- not library #1. Even (import srfi-1-lists) would be better than (import srfi-1). In addition, such names make the language more approachable for new users. Not only do they ha…
Working on that. As SRFIs get incorporated into the R7RS-large edition of the standard, they get renamed to (scheme list) and so on. Of course, that hasn't propagated too far yet, but it's coming.
Re: Chicken Scheme 5.0
#80Great to see this. I liked using Chicken on Linux, but unfortunately for me, I am on Windows and do not like using Cygwin or Mingw to compile it for Windows. There is no current MSVS solution as far as I know for now. I use Racket, Extempore [1], and I play with Shen [2] for my lispy appetite. Shen has been ported to Chez Scheme, which is also what Racket is being re-written in (sort of). [1] https://extemporelang.gi…
Not sure if this will work for your use case but have you tried compiling it with WSL? It's much more convenient way to work with Linux software on Windows but may not be what you're looking for if you want to link a library in to a Windows project.
Chicken works great on WSL. I used to have it on both WSL and Cygwin.