On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 00:40 +0300, Ivan Toshkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:58 PM, nubis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > I recently came across plt scheme, through Common Lisp, I've never got a > > chance to work with common lisp, I'm mostly a python web guy. But when I > > found Scheme my first thought was "this is a 'real world' lisp", I know > > I can find the differences between them STFW (already found some of > > them), but I want your informated subjective opinion. What are the > > biggest differences technical and culturally between Common Lisp and Plt > > Scheme. Which kind of people uses each one? ...snip... > You could try learning just enough of both languages, and see which > one fits your tastes better. Use it for some time and give the other > a second chance: at the very least it won't hurt. For CL starting > with Practical Common Lisp[1] seems like a safe bet. > > I guess Schemers can give a good advise where to start with it. I > started with SICP[2] and was blown away, but many people don't like it > that much. > > Have fun. > Ivan Thanks! yes, I read Practical Common Lisp around 6 months ago, (great book, thanks Peter) thats how I joined this list.
I agree learning a little of both languages till I know which one I rather code in. Here's my story so far: I learned a lot by reading PCL, understanding the CLOS "blew my hat off" as we say here in Argentina when something really impresses us, I really learned a lot about OOP when I thought I knew pretty much, and I just love the looping language. On the other hand, PLT scheme has DrScheme, with a small tool to generate a stand-alone executable (which makes it easier to deploy and share with non-lispers), smalltalkish 'message-passing' OO approach, like (send object message args...), and only one obvious way of importing modules. Overall is easier to grasp than the vast common lisp. Library wise, I think I rather common-lisp b/c it seems to have way more libraries and FFI's. Some things I didn't like about scheme is the tail recursion orientation, and the lack of dynamic scoping. I still don't understand why people like paul graham think dynamic scoping is harmful :s (never read an actual explanation) Anyways as a python guy, I like the zen of python, I agree with it, and common lisp looks compatible with it, with the added value of metaprogramming. I know, I know, this sounds like ramblings from a person who can't make up his mind (which in part, they are) Am I to wrong to look at Common lisp for a metaprogramable python replacement? (with less library bindings and googlish hype) Is opening a REPL and running your program the recomended way to run a lisp program? was it ever, or was it just a misconception? I'm just a web programmer that ocassionally makes games, and I feel the toolchains for this tasks are not as 'snappy' as python's, I'm not saying I wouldn't get into it, just want to know what I'm getting into :) -- ----nubis :) http://woobiz.com.ar _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
