Scheme worth it?

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

>>37
I can't think of anyone else who would fly into an indignant rage when learning Common Lisp is suggested.

>>41
Fuck your old, rusty and useless language. Read my lips, motherfucker, D-E-P-R-E-C-A-T-E-D. Dynamic scoping? Are you fucking kidding me?! Scheme is the only Lisp there is.

>>41
As a rule, that hasn't happened on /prog/ (the retard in this thread being the exception), except when it came to the question of what constitutes a "real macro"
>>42
You and I both know that it is not a dynamically Scoped language even if "special" variables are. Scheme has pseudo-dynamic scope done on top of lexical with Parameters and/or fluid let.

>>42
Someone never learned CL and has no idea what the language is about. Dynamic scoping is never on by default, lexical scope is, however you can enable dynamic scope for a variable, either globally or only locally when you need it. It's also not particularily hard to implement dynamic scoping it it didn't exist, but I'm glad it's in the language - I found it quite useful for parametrization purposes, among others. Optional dynamic scope is very useful and is a safe way of having globals.

I shouldn't have even answered to your post, IHBT.

just out of curiousity, what is Racket? Its just a flavor of Scheme that has features added to make teaching easier? If you set the language to R6RS in DrScheme/Racket then you get vanilla Scheme right?

>>45
Racket is just a rebranding of PLT Scheme so they don't feel obligated to continue Scheme traditions any more. They have an R6RS and an R5RS language from which you can access other Racket libraries if you want to use them.

Newer Posts

---

Don't change these.

Name:		Email:
Entire Thread Thread List