5 ms·

Currently, this comment is heavily downvoted, which I do not understand. If Julia warrants mentioning as having a lispy core, then it’s at least as valid to poi

Currently, this comment is heavily downvoted, which I do not understand. If Julia warrants mentioning as having a lispy core, then it’s at least as valid to point out R’s deeply lisp-inspired (and technical implementation based) heritage. I mean, scratch the surface on any of the FFI docs, and you’ll see that SEXPRs are right there lurking barely beneath the surface: http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/rcpp.html http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/rcpp.html EDIT: and you can, as the parent comment says, do much worse than Hadley’s functional programming guide as an introduction.

qwerty456127 8y ago
> and you’ll see that SEXPRs are right there lurking barely beneath the surface Then why the surface? Why can't we just have a lisp with a good data-science library? Scheme seems the easiest of all the programming languages to me. I bet I can teach Scheme (not including advanced FP stuff though) to anybody faster than any other language although I have never used it to code anything serious (because libraries), I actually find it simpler than Python or even VBA. Phenomenally everybody seems so scared by the parentheses but these are not a serious problem given an intelligent IDE with proper outlining and highlighting.
- disgruntledphd2 8y ago
  Because they made the decision to be S-compatible, as many statisticians used S+ at the time. At that point in time, the real lispers all used X-Lisp Stat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XLispStat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XLispStat (in fact, some people objected to the journal of statistical software on the basis that it would only cover XLispStat).
- peatmoss 8y ago
  You’re preaching to the choir here. I’d love to see a data science community around Racket in particular. In fact, you can do quite a lot in Racket today, just with not nearly the libraries and tooling as Python or R. But as a consolation prize, R is pretty Schemey, and has the best collection of libraries for data around. It’s been a dream for years to figure out a way of making use of more of R from Racket, but time and deadlines keep getting in the way.
  - baldfat 8y ago
    I searched and I can't find it but someone was trying to implement R inside of Racket. Personally I really want a language just for cleaning data in Racket first and then tidyverse.
    - peatmoss 8y ago
      Have you seen this package yet? http://alex-hhh.github.io/2018/08/racket-data-frame-package.html http://alex-hhh.github.io/2018/08/racket-data-frame-package.... I think it could be the starting point for some data science work in Racket.
      - baldfat 8y ago
        Thank you so for finding that. It is a totally different project but further along then the one I was following a few years ago.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  Most programmers, esp from ALGOL-like and C-like languages, hate the syntax. Decades have been wasted trying to convince them to overlook it. Clojure was a surprising exception. Whereas many languages that stayed close to languages people were familiar with got adoption. Better to hide the LISP'y core underneath a syntax similar to a widely deployed language. Julia was a brilliant example that's getting a lot of uptake vs scientific LISP's as predicted.

qwerty456127 8y ago

> and you’ll see that SEXPRs are right there lurking barely beneath the surface Then why the surface? Why can't we just have a lisp with a good data-science library? Scheme seems the easiest of all the programming languages to me. I bet I can teach Scheme (not including advanced FP stuff though) to anybody faster than any other language although I have never used it to code anything serious (because libraries), I actually find it simpler than Python or even VBA. Phenomenally everybody seems so scared by the parentheses but these are not a serious problem given an intelligent IDE with proper outlining and highlighting.

disgruntledphd2 8y ago
Because they made the decision to be S-compatible, as many statisticians used S+ at the time. At that point in time, the real lispers all used X-Lisp Stat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XLispStat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XLispStat (in fact, some people objected to the journal of statistical software on the basis that it would only cover XLispStat).
peatmoss 8y ago
You’re preaching to the choir here. I’d love to see a data science community around Racket in particular. In fact, you can do quite a lot in Racket today, just with not nearly the libraries and tooling as Python or R. But as a consolation prize, R is pretty Schemey, and has the best collection of libraries for data around. It’s been a dream for years to figure out a way of making use of more of R from Racket, but time and deadlines keep getting in the way.
- baldfat 8y ago
  I searched and I can't find it but someone was trying to implement R inside of Racket. Personally I really want a language just for cleaning data in Racket first and then tidyverse.
  - peatmoss 8y ago
    Have you seen this package yet? http://alex-hhh.github.io/2018/08/racket-data-frame-package.html http://alex-hhh.github.io/2018/08/racket-data-frame-package.... I think it could be the starting point for some data science work in Racket.
    - baldfat 8y ago
      Thank you so for finding that. It is a totally different project but further along then the one I was following a few years ago.
nickpsecurity 8y ago
Most programmers, esp from ALGOL-like and C-like languages, hate the syntax. Decades have been wasted trying to convince them to overlook it. Clojure was a surprising exception. Whereas many languages that stayed close to languages people were familiar with got adoption. Better to hide the LISP'y core underneath a syntax similar to a widely deployed language. Julia was a brilliant example that's getting a lot of uptake vs scientific LISP's as predicted.