3 ms·

>Before I convince you that it’s crazy, let’s step back a bit and ask why would JS adherents make a statement like this to begin with? You don’t hear people say

>Before I convince you that it’s crazy, let’s step back a bit and ask why would JS adherents make a statement like this to begin with? You don’t hear people saying, “Yeah, FORTRAN is basically Icon” or “Sather has a really solid SNOBOL core,” do you? Why this arbitrary pairing? After meticulous scientific research, I’ve discovered two historical reasons and one weird psychological one. [...] >In some weird organic process, the pantheon of programming languages have ordered themselves in terms of prestige. It’s as random but undeniable as music and fashion. Radiohead is on one end, and Nickelback is on the other. No one knows precisely how they got there, but there they are. >On the Radiohead end, you’ve got Common Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, and a few others. Scheme is even more Lisp than Lisp, so it’s like that weird avant garde band no one’s heard of that Radiohead always claims inspired their latest album. If Lisp is Radiohead, Scheme is Kraftwerk. https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt-scheme/ https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isn...

ethbro 7y ago
I love Kraftwerk! Maybe I should try Scheme?
- afc 7y ago
  For what it's worth it, I absolutely love Kraftwerk but, having coded in Scheme for about a decade, I very much dislike Scheme. I'd take Haskell, C++, or Java over Scheme without hesitation. I feel that my life is too short to code in languages without static type checks.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    Yes, a static type system at least strong enough to support parametric polymorphism is an unmitigated win. JavaScript sucks in the same way Scheme does in this regard; but thankfully, there's TypeScript.
    - alharith 7y ago
      Try ReasonML
  - throwaway17_17 7y ago
    I would say that if your only problem with Scheme is the lack of static typing, as opposed to the litany of other complaints that are popular, then Typed Racket is a serviceable language. I would say it’s type system is at least equal what you get in C++ or Java. It is not as expressive as Haskell (but really what is that doesn’t go full Idris/Agda/ATS), but there are some #langs making headway to that space.

ethbro 7y ago

I love Kraftwerk! Maybe I should try Scheme?

afc 7y ago
For what it's worth it, I absolutely love Kraftwerk but, having coded in Scheme for about a decade, I very much dislike Scheme. I'd take Haskell, C++, or Java over Scheme without hesitation. I feel that my life is too short to code in languages without static type checks.
- bitwize 7y ago
  Yes, a static type system at least strong enough to support parametric polymorphism is an unmitigated win. JavaScript sucks in the same way Scheme does in this regard; but thankfully, there's TypeScript.
  - alharith 7y ago
    Try ReasonML
- throwaway17_17 7y ago
  I would say that if your only problem with Scheme is the lack of static typing, as opposed to the litany of other complaints that are popular, then Typed Racket is a serviceable language. I would say it’s type system is at least equal what you get in C++ or Java. It is not as expressive as Haskell (but really what is that doesn’t go full Idris/Agda/ATS), but there are some #langs making headway to that space.