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:
Anonymous2010-10-03 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:
Anonymous2010-10-03 19:35
>>8
Who teaches scheme for introductory programming classes? I had straight C++ for high school and college introductory classes.
>>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:
Anonymous2010-10-03 19:54
>>9
And you think C++ is better for teaching programming than Scheme?
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-03 20:04
>>11
At least C++ is a useful language that can help get you a job.
>>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.
>>12 We should teach programming with whatever language is currently popular, rather than picking a language good for teaching good programming principles.
No.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-04 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.
>>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+).
>>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).