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

Scheme worth it?

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 17:56

Essentially what the subject says

Is it worth it?

I can see the idea behind the concept of homoiconicity, but really, wouldn't it be a waste of time for a seasoned programmer to learn to use it?

I tried to watch the MIT lectures, but they were godawfully boring

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 18:01

Prepare to have your anus ravaged by angry susstards.

On a serious note though, if you don't feel like it, you don't need to learn it. You'll know when the time is right to pursue satori.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 18:02

Many people get along just fine with mere mediocrity. It's your call.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 18:08

>>3
Many people get along just fine with mere parentheses. It's your call.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 18:19

>>1
Of course it's worth it. If you aren't proficient in some dialect of Lisp, it's safe to say that you don't know anything about abstraction.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 18:20

>>4
Many people get along just fine with mere functions. It's your call.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 18:40

wouldn't it be a waste of time for a seasoned programmer to learn to use it?
While it is up to you if you want to learn Scheme, I find this attitude is disgusting. Learning doesn't stop at 18.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 18:52

Scheme is simpler than CL which is why it is used more in introductory programming classes. There is nothing inherently weak about Scheme, there are plenty of professional programmers who prefer it over CL. It comes down to preference

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 19:35

>>8
Who teaches scheme for introductory programming classes? I had straight C++ for high school and college introductory classes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 19:46

>>9
That's because your teachers are fucking retards.

Seriously, though Scheme wouldn't be my main choice as a programming language for quite anything, it serves as a perfect way of learning new ways of thinking about the structure and the interpretation of computer programs. Even though you may not use it afterwards, you absolutely won't regret learning it (using a good textbook, of course, such as SICP). Guaranteed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 19:54

>>9
And you think C++ is better for teaching programming than Scheme?

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 20:04

>>11
At least C++ is a useful language that can help get you a job.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 20:08

>>12
As a codemonkey. NO THANK YOU

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 20:10

>>12
Codemonkey's use .NET, Java, and web languages.
Academia use shit like Scheme, Lisp, Haskell
Real programmers use whatever the fuck they need to to best get the job done.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 20:47

>>14
Then who uses Sepples?

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 21:24

>>15
Real programmers that know the value of C++ and when to use it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 21:24

>>14
How does it feel to be a product of an anti-intellectual upbringing?

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 21:57

>>17
Fuck you, piece of shit elitist. Back to your sea of parentheses, please.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 23:18

>>17
Fuck off, Xarn.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 23:22

deliriants

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-03 23:40

LISP, Scheme et al. are great as curiosities.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 1:20

>>19
Fuck, not you again.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 1:46

>>12
We should teach programming with whatever language is currently popular, rather than picking a language good for teaching good programming principles.

No.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 2:06

>>23
You are implying that scheme's retarded syntax and millions of nested parenthesis is a good language to teach programming principles with.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 2:15

>>24
Yes. I know C++, but you don't know Scheme. I can reliably compare the two, but you can't. So either learn Scheme or shut the fuck up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 2:51

>>24
Obviously. I'll let the clueless comments about Scheme slide.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 4:03

>>9
Straight C++? I'd call that pretty queer, especially for college introductory classes.

>>15
Real manual memory managers and C programmers who like to store function pointers in structs.

>>24
So your main issue with Scheme is that it has "millions of nested parenthesis". BASIC programmer spotted.

And >>1, do learn Scheme.

Name: VIPPER 2010-10-04 8:13

>>15
Then who uses Sepples?
VIPPERVideo game makers.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 9:23

Learn Scheme, then learn Common Lisp, then learn Haskell, and use the last two.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 9:33

use Haskell
oh you

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 10:15

>>29
learn Common Lisp
fuck you

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 10:19

seasoned programmer

Your not ``seasoned''.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 11:06

>>32
He is after his freak accident at the herb factory

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 11:37

>>29
This. However, I wouldn't hold it against someone if they choose to use Scheme instead. It usually comes down to the programmer's tastes which he prefers, or which is more suitable for his problem. Myself, I prefer using CL for most things, but Scheme is attractive for using for some embedded stuff since it's easier to implement and much tinier (R5RS at least, can't say the same for R6RS+).

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 12:17

>>34
You wouldn't want R6RS at the embedded level, but you wouldn't want a full R5RS either. First-class continuations, dynamic wind, etc. would just be overhead (in most cases).

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 12:25

>>31
Schemers are such irrational children.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 12:29

>>36
What does that have to do with >>31 ?

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 13:10

>>36
Fuck you too. Scheme > *.

Name: A schemer 2010-10-04 13:15

>>38
This man does not represent us (> Scheme *)

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-04 13:30

>>39
You can't compare Scheme and a function!

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