* Christopher Howard <christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> [121012 10:41]:
> On 10/12/2012 08:07 AM, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > * Christopher Howard <christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> [121012 07:10]:
> >
> > Anyone here done anything with scheme?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_(programming_language)
> > Or studied the "Little Schemer" Books?
> > PLT scheme (or racket) http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html
> > http://plt-scheme.org/
> > Just curious ...
> >
>
> For what it's worth... It's pretty high on my list of languages to
> learn, after gaining some degree of mastery in Haskell. But it's
> competing with Prolog, Emacs Lisp, and Common Lisp, which all interest
> me for various reasons, so I'm not sure exactly when I'll get around to
> it. But feel free to share your experiences! (I'll be interested at least.)
As a one-time emacsen, I have to opine that the only reason to use
Emacs Lisp would be that you are actually using emacs.
I would recommend Racket over Common Lisp and I would even suggest
the investigation of newlisp (newlisp.org). At least inform
yourself of it. (Common Lispers go crazy when you mention
newlisp).
I *believe* that the book "The Reasoned Schemer" uses scheme
extensions to investigate logic programming (a la prolog) and
functional programming in a more advanced mode.
-- Tim tim at tee jay forty nine dot com or akwebsoft dot com http://www.akwebsoft.com --------- To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.Received on Fri Oct 12 10:59:30 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 12 2012 - 10:59:30 AKDT