Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Scheme is the new BASIC

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 13:30

Uncanny similarities:
1.Targeted at beginners.
2.Minimalist instruction set.
3.Used as educational language.
4.Hides complexity of underlying system.
5.Incapable of attracting serious developers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 13:32

Now that you mention it...

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 13:45

Properly abstracting with BASIC is much harder.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 13:49

>>3
Scheme > VisualBasic

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 13:50

>>4

LISP > Scheme

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 14:12

So would that make Python the new Pascal?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 14:14

>>6
Touchè

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 14:18

1.Targeted at beginners.
2.Minimalist instruction set.
3.Used as educational language.
4.Hides complexity of underlying system.
5.Incapable of attracting serious developers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 14:18

Ш

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 14:19

ШШШШШШШШШШШ

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 16:15

6. Does irreparable brain damage to students taught with it, stripping them of any vestiges of pragmatism. Clean! Hygeine!

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 16:23

>>11
By 'irreparable brain damage' you mean Satori?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 17:09

>>12
Nope. Learn a real Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 17:39

>>13
I'm assuming you're referring to Common Lisp. If you think an imperative language will get you closer to satori than a functional one you're an idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 18:41

>>14
Common Lisp is multiparadigm.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 20:17

>>15
That just means it sucks at everything.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 21:02

Wasn't there a polite flamewar 12+ years ago on usenet about Sceme vs LISP. I particularily remember a certain Erik Naggum individual.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 21:02

>>17
s/sceme/scheme

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 21:38

>>18
s/scheme/scemen

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 22:01

Python is the new BASIC

Uncanny similarities:
1.Targeted at beginners.
2.NULL
3.Used as educational language.
4.Hides complexity of underlying system.
5.Incapable of attracting serious developers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 22:35

>>17
flamewar ... usenet ... Sceme vs LISP ... Naggum
It sounds likely.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 22:37

>>17
There are still flamewars today over whether Scheme really counts as Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 22:46

>>22
Let's have one now!

I propose that by the abandonment of traditional Lisp macros or at least by the reduction of their prominence by disinclusion of this feature from revisions to reports in adherence to a neurotic notion of ``cleanliness'' and ``hygeine'' Sceme is no longer a ``real'' Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 23:10

>>23
The original Lisp didn't have macros in the first place. I agree completely.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 23:15

>>24
It did, however, construct programs as lists.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 23:35

Scheme is a Lisp, the best Lisp. Without Scheme, Common Lisp wouldn't even have lexical scope and be dead by now.
Schemers innovate, Common Lispniks disguise their lacking understanding of language design as ``worse is better'' or ``organic''. Schemers create language improvements like proper tail calls, lexically scoped macros and reifiable continuations, CLers rehash their poorly thought out features.

Where CL claims to be a Lisp because it adopts historical mistakes, Scheme is a Lisp because it has been continuously ahead of its time and always will be.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 23:38

Scheme has relegated Lisp to being an academic curio.  Death to all schemers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-18 23:43

>>26
Surely you mean that Schemers dabble in abstract bullshite while Lispers mostly ignore them. Lexical scope is the only practical thing to come out of Scheme. And I don't mean some ``lexically scoped macro'' bullshit that nobody uses, including Schemers.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 2:36

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List