3 ms·

My solution was to turn to PLT Scheme (now: Racket) and DrScheme. I figured that would work just fine as long as I didn't understand the difference between Sche

My solution was to turn to PLT Scheme (now: Racket) and DrScheme. I figured that would work just fine as long as I didn't understand the difference between Scheme and Lisp anyway.

shawndumas 16y ago
Does anyone know if Land of Lisp could be done (and by done I mean cradle to grave) in Racket? I own the book but have put off starting it for the lack of knowledge regarding a cross-platform IDE to do all the exercises in -- as my time would be split between my work Windows [1] and my home OS X environments. I do, however, have Racket installed on both; so... ---- [1]: and I have already been shot down on Cygwin
- mahmud 16y ago
  Use Land of Lisp with clisp and LispIDE. I have already posted the link elsewhere in this thread. LispIDE already ships with CLISP and full Common Lisp documentation. If you know how to use a text editor and click on a button labeled "Run", then you can use LispIDE. You can stop by the IRC channel #lisp on Freenode, or you can shoot me an email if you need help, or tweet me a hola. Details in my profile.
- jimbokun 16y ago
  One thing I sometimes enjoy doing with programming books is just re-writing all the example code in a different language. It's a lot lazier than actually doing the exercises, but still requires you to fully understand the concepts in the example code in order to translate them. One example: I re-implemented much of the example Haskell code from a functional data structures book in Clojure, which improved my Haskell reading, my Clojure writing, and ensured that I actually understood the algorithms. So I heartily endorse your idea of implementing the Land of Lisp examples in Racket Scheme.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
gooberdlx 16y ago
I spent many hours of my college career in DrScheme... Racket is definitely the way to go!
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  Nothing against Racket, but working through examples in a book with Common Lisp source using a Scheme implementation is going to be unnecessarily confusing.

My solution was to turn to PLT Scheme (now: Racket) and DrScheme. I figured that would work just fine as long as I didn't understand the difference between Scheme and Lisp anyway.

shawndumas 16y ago

Does anyone know if Land of Lisp could be done (and by done I mean cradle to grave) in Racket? I own the book but have put off starting it for the lack of knowledge regarding a cross-platform IDE to do all the exercises in -- as my time would be split between my work Windows [1] and my home OS X environments. I do, however, have Racket installed on both; so... ---- [1]: and I have already been shot down on Cygwin

mahmud 16y ago
Use Land of Lisp with clisp and LispIDE. I have already posted the link elsewhere in this thread. LispIDE already ships with CLISP and full Common Lisp documentation. If you know how to use a text editor and click on a button labeled "Run", then you can use LispIDE. You can stop by the IRC channel #lisp on Freenode, or you can shoot me an email if you need help, or tweet me a hola. Details in my profile.
jimbokun 16y ago
One thing I sometimes enjoy doing with programming books is just re-writing all the example code in a different language. It's a lot lazier than actually doing the exercises, but still requires you to fully understand the concepts in the example code in order to translate them. One example: I re-implemented much of the example Haskell code from a functional data structures book in Clojure, which improved my Haskell reading, my Clojure writing, and ensured that I actually understood the algorithms. So I heartily endorse your idea of implementing the Land of Lisp examples in Racket Scheme.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

gooberdlx 16y ago

I spent many hours of my college career in DrScheme... Racket is definitely the way to go!

silentbicycle 16y ago
Nothing against Racket, but working through examples in a book with Common Lisp source using a Scheme implementation is going to be unnecessarily confusing.