I'm just wanted to know since I have a bit of code in mind I wanted to make, but would be rather complex.
pretty much a object search program instead of a word search program.
You have a picture or group of pictures with the same object in it. lets say a trash can. you select the trash cans image, and the program could do a search for images with objects that look like it.
it would also be able to display useful information on the object or location of the picture, and store any data saved for that search.
so it would pretty much be able to link much more effectively then a word search.
>>15
Stalin is an optimizing compiler mostly used for research, not for every day Scheming. If I remember correctly, it is implements only R4RS.
Chicken is a really good choice, in my opinion. You may also consider trying other implementations to see which fits you best, i.e. Gambit, Racket, Bigloo.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-22 5:31
>>15
I was actually reading about racket right now. I was thinking of giving it a try.
>>21
Read HtDP and SICP. Both are about general programming/computer science, but use Scheme (specifically Racket for HtDP) as teaching language.
Both are available online, google them.
>>29 making GUI and 3D stuff in C#
Why would anyone do that? Is there suddenly a demand for GUIs and 3D stuff that is too slow to be useful? Man, these kids these days just want to do everything the wrong way. In my day, framerate meant something.
>>29
Racket bundles GUI bindings, colleagues. That's what Dr. Racket is made in.
>>27,28
That's because you believe that computing and programming are about instructing a particular computer what to do. It's not, programs are [b]ABSTRACT BULLSHITE[b] that exist on your mind, and can be expressed in various ways, including programming languages that run in an actual computer.
Starting with a virtual machine is just as valid. Not that learning computer organization won't do you good, but that wasn't what you said either, ``faggot''.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-23 4:02
you believe that computing and programming are about instructing a particular computer what to do. It's not
No, actually, that is exactly what programming is. The computer you're "instructing" might be abstract, but it's still a computer and you're still instructing it.
Starting with a virtual machine is just as valid
It's valid, but not wise. The idea is to start with as few layers of abstraction as possible. Zeros and ones, then ANDs and ORs, then shifts and adds, then registers and memory, then assembly, then C, and then and only then, an interpreter if you like.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-23 12:03
No, actually, that is exactly what programming is. The computer you're "instructing" might be abstract, but it's still a computer and you're still instructing it.
Yes... that was about the core of my argument on that point. That's why any random assembly language doesn't have preponderance over say, Scheme.
But let's have an argument here. You think that the way to go is going up from a machine with registers, a stack and RAM and build up to C only. And that will teach a way to program, indeed. But it's not the essence of programming. Holding in your head the whole tower of abstractions down to logic gates is not even useful, unless you are an autistic savant of some sort (and this being /prog/, we can only be sure that you are a plain old autist), but furthermore, it's missing the point!
The point is to create those abstract computers and to be able to reason over them and create more abstract computers on top of it all. That abstract computer may be as simple as the Lambda Calculus or C, or as inscrutable as PHP, but what you will be doing is building up, not down, and thus I believe that it's best to learn of its value and form than to dig down immediately to a concrete machine.
I know that you are partly arguing for starting out with a simple model, but the important lesson is that abstract models can also be simple, even if they seem complicated to implement in C or Pascal or whatever.
If anything, the OP at least won't turn out like those Slashdot automatons that think that actually believe that C is all there is (not claiming that you are one, it's just that it's sad to see those folks just set on one thing they learned 20-30 years ago, or 5, if they are just trying to look old-sk00l).
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-23 12:19
>>35
Top down approach is "programming on paper" and is very distanced and abstracted from realities and limitations of real hardware, its just an academical exercise in CS. It does not teach good habits, its sort of inapplicable higher math research.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-23 12:22
>>36
Not really what I was arguing for. And the limitations and realities of real hardware don't always have much bearing on what you are doing.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-23 13:12
I AM THE KING OF FARTS, BOW DOWN AND SMELL MY HEAVENLY ODORS
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-23 13:15
I AM THE KING OF FARTS, BOW DOWN AND SMELL MY HEAVENLY ODORS
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-23 17:58
Obviously abstraction is good. Processors are getting more and more powerful and so programmers now have the choice of using lots of abstraction. It cuts down of programming time and ease of programming.
And just forgetting about the machine completely also allows the programmer to just think about the problem (and it's algorithmic solution) instead of thinking about how to program the problem.