API Calls & Framework... IDK

Inexperienced programmer (just started a week ago, no shit I'm just now understanding why classes rock so hard.). If making API calls to linked libraries in statically compiled binaries is faster than using a framework that uses JiT compilation... why do so many people push for the framework and JiT compilation?

I'm not trying to start anything, but I'm seriously curious as to why the later is the preferred choice.

Read SICP.

Do you have a link, or can I google it?

why classes rock so hard
You have much to learn. You shouldn't even be considering questions of the rank of that you just posted.

>>3
Yes. Full text here: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html

>>2,5
You know, at first I was against directing newbies to SICP. But now I realize that it's probably the fastest way they can assimilate all that it takes to understand programming and not be lured into some idiotic cul-de-sac like forced OOP.

Like a bunch of thing popped into my head and shit. Break from reading. And I got more questions:

1) Where can someone get lisp? (I tried to find it on google and it said I had to compile the programming language I want to use.

2) Why the fuck do they teach C in school if there's a language this easy?

3) If I have to compile it myself then what do I use to compile it cause idk what language this is in.

>>4

- The teacher spent the first 2 days going over compiler options. Something about how the binary is compiled is almost as important as the code.

- The original question came from referencing "benchmarks tests" in the school book. And seeing chart after chart on google (both everything & images)

side note:

Yes, I know I'm a bit over the place but my brainz a buzzin.

>>1

Forget every other post. I'm telling you right now, functional programming was made as a toy for AI research and is not big anywhere. Everything in the real world is done using OOP and shittastic languages nobody likes. We're all a bunch of idealist computer scientists that wish it wasn't so.

Now that that's over,
Read SICP!
If it ain't Lisp, it's shit!

>>8
That being said, SICP is a very interesting and enlightening read, but don't discredit other languages.

>>7
You should look for a Scheme interpreter. It's the variation of Lisp that the book implements.

>>9

I tried finding a "Scheme Interpreter" and came up with this:

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~nlt/interpreters.html

Are all these basically the same or are they different like Objective-C and Microsoft-C ???

>>8
If it ain't Lisp, it's shit!
Stop being a cretin, ``please''.

>>7,10
Learn the godly trio: Lisp (Scheme), C and assembly. You may also take a look into Smalltalk and Haskell to see some different approaches to things.

For going through SICP, I'd say use the compiled binary from http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/

Also, do the godly trio in the specified order.

and check my doubles

>>10
I found Chicken works best with the Scheme from SICP. Over the years they revised it, and Racket (the latest edition of Scheme) has some issues.

Okay, really quick... I something. Common Lisp. Which I'm assuming is different from Scheme Lisp(./?) Is there any kind of chart or list that you guys know of with all the different versions of Lisp and there differences, cause its sweet and so easy.

[I tied looking at the wiki, but that only had who started Lisp and like a Lisp biography]

>>14
Okay, really quick...
Threads don't die around here. You can come back in a year from now and you'll find this thread right where you left it.

>>12
And, fuck off, spammer.

>>16
butt_{hurt lithpfag}

>>1
I'm glad you are seeing through the bullshit. The biggest crime against software development is the crime of treating the virtual machine as the platform, instead of the underlying hardware as the platform. This idealization of the virtual machine/browser as the platform has done more damage than garbage collection, object-orientation, and vast libraries and frameworks combined. It has created a generation of software developers and computer scientists who don't understand what's really going on at the hardware level.

>>11

implying that assembly is a homogeneous language
WHAT PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURE? cretin

>>18
Computer scientist shouldn't require any hardware level understaning. Our studies in CS are completely abstract.

>>19
x86-64, obviously.

>>18
``Computer Science'' is a branch of Mathematics and thus abstract. Implementation details may matter in Software Engineering, but not in CS. You don't know shit about programming.

>>22
Actually so-called ``computer science'' has a lot more in common with MAGIC

>>17
Go _away.