scheme is superior

the start of a beautiful IRC bot
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4650/winra0.png

start of a basic IRC client for the funs
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5165/clientdl7.png

see how I can interactively change shit as the program is running. totally sweet

enjoy.

fail:

scheme sucks
windows sucks
mac theme sucks

here's a guide how not to fail:

use haskell
use bsd
use xmonad

It's not just Scheme. There have been a number of languages and their associated environments that could do things like this.

Of course, several decades later and we're still stuck with the shittiest of development tools; they're just bandaids on a festering carcass.

One camp thinks Eclipse is the best thing ever, another worships Eclipse, and the third loves vi, yet they all suck tragically. The only reason anybody thinks they're good is ignorance of computing's history.

One camp thinks Emacs is the best thing ever
fix'd

>>2
scheme rocks
windows rocks
mac theme rocks

here's a guide about how not to fail:
shut the fuck up

>>2
also, lol@bsd and X inferiority

>>3
yeah, I wasn't so much saying that only scheme/lisp has this. I just thought I'd point it out because it is a kick-ass way to program

Use *BSD if all you want to do is use an IRC client. The only BSD I use is the one sitting under OS X.

>>7
Indeed it is.

It gives me lulz when I bump into people who think incremental compilation, or even REPL, is awesome. It's nowhere fucking close to where we used to be, and a few niche languages are right now.

I blame it on UNIX, personally. Kinda sad it's the best OS we have right now, with all its brain-damage and shitty baggage.

Fact: scheme and java are completely fucking useless. I have never seen a worthwhile application written in either. I tried making myself use scheme once but I vomited at the end of the session. It's just so retarded. It doesn't even have a function composition operator. WTF?

>>10
Poor.

>>1
Scheme rocks
Windows sucks
Black background rocks
Mac theme sucks (digital lifestyle)

>>3
To develop, you only need a text editor. If a language requires you to use more than that, it sucks. You just use the text editor with the most features you use, the least features you don't use, and better interface (as in standard keys, principle of least surprise, PCRE), which rules Eclipse (bloated enterpriseware), vi (shitty interface) and emacs (shitty interface) out. I recommend Kate on UNIX and PSPad on Windows or Wine. (Protip: PSPad takes less memory than Kate if you don't run KDE. Yes, even counting Wine. Yes, it's sad.)

>>9
Truth on UNIX, it's kind of an ugly hack of an OS. However, the alternatives are even uglier hacks, or bloated 90s enterprise bullshit. We need something with the simplicity of UNIX, the filesystem focus of Plan 9 (though I'd add indexable metadata and reverse hardlink indexes), the purity of Scheme, the size of MS-DOS (though I'm willing to sacrifice size for filesystem-related features), and the legacies of nothing (e.g. no 3284720389457 terminals and shitty keyboards which never work, no ancient irregular commands, no crappy shell, etc.).

>>10
Fact: you're a lame troll. Next time, you should spike your trolls with some truth, so that they irritate people.

>>10
It doesn't even have a function composition operator.
If you're too stupid to write one yourself you shouldn't be attempting to write programs.

(define (dot f g)
  (lambda (x) (f (g x))))

Happy now?

Fail thread.

>>Happy now?

Wow! Awesome! Except that it looks like

(dot (dot (dot (dot f g) h) i) k)

instead of Haskell's

f.g.h.i.k

>>15
OK Bitchy McLikesToWhine, here:

; composes 2 functions
(define (dot2 f g)
  (lambda (x) (f (g x))))

; variable arity function that folds dot2 into its arguments
; and composes as many functions as you like. fag.
(define (dot f g . rest)
  (cond ((null? rest) (dot2 f g))
        (else (dot2 f (apply dot (cons g rest))))))

And now you can do (dot f g h i k). You should be able to figure this shit out on your own.

>>16
stop. fucking. giving. this. idiot. code.

>>12
What bothers me about Plan 9 is that every transfer protocol is abstracted. So file operations are just like working with a local disc. The issue I see with that is connections that are cut while a transfer is taking place. Couple things you can do to make it a non-issue: (1) resume support (2) special treatment functions such as pausing the transfer, resuming, etc. and naming the transfer protocol, giving protocol-specific options. Another alternative could be to have a the operating system make you access all files like a socket connection. You could come up with functions to abstract it and make it less complex. But that's just a random thought I had one time. Shrug.

>>18
To be honest, though, I don't think that P9 stuff is of a very UNIXy philosophy? I mean, there should really be a specific one-purpose ("do one thing and do it well") program for each protocol that comes with the OS, not one layer that handles all protocols.

>>19
No. Plan 9 is more UNIX than UNIX itself. Protocols are nothing more than implementation details. They should be abstracted away and presented to the user in a uniform manner. That's what UNIX has always been about.

>>18 same
>>19 fucking
>>20 person

>>21
Three. Different. People.

>>23,24
Pame serson.

>>23
No

To develop, you only need a text editor. If a language requires you to use more than that, it sucks.
While I agree with the sentiment to some degree, I think you too have suffered too long with *nix and its burden.

Take a look at the way Genera did things for a developer. I hear the Smalltalk world has something similar. Factor is miles away from achieving it, but it's trying to get there.

Now ask yourself if your favorite language or environment has anything anywhere close to that. Unless you're a PL weenie, 95% chance you don't.

The problem isn't the editor or IDE. A "simple" editor indicates that you think the editor should somehow be separate from the rest of the system, and thus you loose out on all the goodies such a thing could bring. Things like Eclipse and Emacs are just a poor attempt to cover this over, and thus are large and ugly while still missing the point.

The problem is something far more fundamental, and it's in large part a heritage of UNIX.

Take a look at the way Genera
can you show me or tell me a bit about Genera please?

An IRC bot! That's original!

>>25
I don't see what Unices has to do with anything here.

>>26
Look, I googled it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera

That'll be $10.

I want to learn Scheme now.

Thanks OP.

>>26
An HTML version of an old doc:
http://lispm.dyndns.org/genera-concepts/genera.html

>>28
That might be because you think of your programs, your development environment, and the OS & libraries as separate entities. Guess which OS was a great purveyor of that mindset? Now everybody is doing it (or worse, as in Windows).

Scheme rules.

DrScheme's shitty forced IDE blows.

>>1
sorry but how is your shitty 5 lines of using a pre-written IRC library superior to anything?

>>17
there.are.some.non.idiots.learning.from.this.too

Following links from the wikipedia Genera page suggests there might be emulators for Genera and lisp machines.
(I don't know, I've only spent a few minutes on this.)

http://www.unlambda.com/
http://vlee.sourceforge.net/
http://cbbrowne.com/info/lisposes.html

OP here.

>>32
It's not forced. You can use MzScheme (the Scheme interpreter behind DrScheme) as a commandline/scripting language like one uses Perl.

>>1
ITT I just learned how to use prewritten libraries

>>37
I wrote the IRC library myself, would you like to see the code?

No? Then GTFO.

scheme is for weeaboos.
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=699935

>>38
as if lol

>>40
Then GTFO.

>>39 is and EXPER PROGRAMMER

which is even worse than an EXPERT

>>41
your logic does not follow
OH WAIT YEAH IT DOES LOLOLOLOL ITS LIKE THIS:

IHBT -> SHOUT AT PEOPLE AND TELL THEM GTFO LIKE A BABY

thread over? ;)