25 ms·
this is ridiculous for a first reading. its the same as telling someone to use common lisp for sicp. why? maybe on a second or third reading for fun but to dige
by medo-bear 4y ago
this is ridiculous for a first reading. its the same as telling someone to use common lisp for sicp. why? maybe on a second or third reading for fun but to digest this book just use a well supported language like common lisp for which the book was written
- zelphirkalt 4y agoI can switch to Common Lisp at any time later in the book, if I feel, that translating to Scheme is too difficult for me. I will need to understand CL anyway, to do the translation. What I do not like about CL is probably one of the "wars" fought in computer programming: I do not like, that I have to use funcall, instead of simply wrapping with parens. I do not like, that variables and functions are in separate namespaces. However, if going through the book using Scheme gets too complicated, these are not things I cannot get over. EDIT: I probably also do not like the less emphasis on pure functions in CL. I think while solving some exercises I already did some things, so that I could solve without mutating global state. But it's been a while since I last continued working through the book, so I am not so sure. I get that sometimes a simple side-effect can be practical, but this is my free time occupation and I get joy from doing things in clean ways. Nevertheless, Common Lisp is one of the languages, which I wish I could actually work in (like on the job, not in my free time), when I compare it to things like Python, JavaScript and so on. At least it is in the family of languages I enjoy using.