[gambit-list] Resources for learning scheme: Re: New user (& Questions)
John Ribe
john at johnribe.com
Tue Jul 23 21:31:52 EDT 2013
Amirouche,
I will give you a few of my opinions.
I learned scheme in 1986 using the TI PC Scheme interpreter. I read R3RS
which seemed like a really well written and clear document, but I could
not quite figure out how to actually use it. And then by chance I
stumbled upon the book "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs"
-- that was the missing piece that let me put it all together. It is an
old book now but I still highly recommend it. It was written as an
introductory programming textbook and I was surprised how useful I found
it because I regarded myself as a pretty experienced programmer at that
time (and I had taken college level computer science courses). A bonus is
that the text is now available free on the web and there is a set of video
lectures also available free presented by one of the books authors. I
think the R5RS is still a pretty readable document, don't go near the
later RXRS specs until you feel you have a real mastery of scheme.
The book: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/
The video lectures:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/video-lectures/
Maybe I am a stupid dinosaur, but I have always thought that object
oriented languages seem to obfuscate programs by introducing an absurd
amount of what I call "ceremony" (as in: "Hello Mr Compiler. Allow me to
introduce you to my friend Variable X who will be used for such and such
values and will be stored as a member of Object Z over here...). So I
agree completely with you "I came to Scheme and Gambit for its
simplicity/minimalism, expressiveness, wisdom and also speed. "
The reason I learned scheme in the first place was because I wanted to
write a DSL that could be run in an interpretive environment. It was a
good choice for me but I will relate this to you: over the course of
several iterations my DSL became less and less of a DSL. I eventually
decided the effort of doing a DSL was a waste and instead decided that the
people I wanted to share the program with would just have to learn to live
with parenthesis. The final documentation I wrote presents it to users as
a DSL that uses a lisp like syntax, but in fact it is nothing more that a
collection of top level variable definitions, procedures, and macros
written in Scheme -- consider it.
John Ribe
John Ribe Consulting LLC
email: john at johnribe.com
office: 630 517 5040
cell: 214 532 9862
skype: john.ribe
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnribe
Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boubekki at gmail.com>
Sent by: gambit-list-bounces at iro.umontreal.ca
07/23/2013 06:37 PM
To
gambit-list at iro.umontreal.ca
cc
Subject
[gambit-list] New user (& Questions)
Héllo,
A new user here, my name is Amirouche, I go by this name from the
beginning of my life which is probably a short period of time but
certainly not too much.
I define myself has being primarly a Python dev. I do web (or related and
sometimes silly) things but that's not what pays the bills.
I came to Scheme and Gambit for its simplicity/minimalism, expressiveness,
wisdom and also speed.
Actually what triggered the need to try a LISP is a problem I encountered.
I needed (or wanted) to keep the number of Python objects to a minimum
while still maintaining maintainability and readability. But the thing is
I'm jailed in the Python class system. I find myself fighting it to have
the user API I want while still providing a clear inner architecture. For
that matter, I use, so-called, advanced patterns like metaclasses and data
descriptors which basically reduce maintainability because Python user
seldom use them. Being less maintainable also means it's less pratical.
What I believe is that LISP-like languages are easier to build DSL while
still keeping the concepts and code pratical. I'm not sure how much this
is True. That said, I also believe, the reason why LISP-like languages
were forgotten from the industry is because every project is a new
language, I don't know how much True this is either. I also assume that
LISP coming from academia, is though to not be pragmatic. Python being
in-between has a privileged position.
Scheme having a small core, makes it I think more practical than LISP,
somewhat easy to learn like Python. While still, making it possible to
express problems and solutions in a clear, concise and efficient way. That
said Scheme and Gambit in particular lakes documentation, except if SFRI
are the documentation...
Those are all assumptions that I want to check.
Anyway,
I tried to build Black Hole but it failed, I filled an issue.
Is there any procedure reference page I can read ? or is it the R5RS ?
See you around,
Amirouche_______________________________________________
Gambit-list mailing list
Gambit-list at iro.umontreal.ca
https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/attachments/20130723/0f096b49/attachment.htm>
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list