←back to thread

Practical Scheme

(practical-scheme.net)
153 points ufko_org | 3 comments | 21 Oct 25 05:47 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
GuestFAUniverse ◴[21 Oct 25 07:10 UTC] No.45653245[source]▶
Where's the "practical" one that site really reflected?

I liked scheme as a learning tool and got highest grades. That doesn't change my impression that most of the sites covering it are mental masturbation. Puzzles, or programs for the sake of scheme itself. Where's the stuff to solve real world problems? (OK, mostly solved by other languages anyway... Still: where is the content that really wants a junior to try it out for routine problems and the senior tonstay with it?)

replies(5): >>45653768 #>>45653976 #>>45654201 #>>45657871 #>>45658304 #
cess11 ◴[21 Oct 25 10:11 UTC] No.45654201[source]▶
Due to the R-series of standards there are actually quite a lot of libraries you can use.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real world problems" but I think most would consider Cisco router firmware to be in that domain. In some sense, due to Cisco the Internet runs on two Lisp-like programming languages: Erlang and Chez.

If you look at TFA you'll find that it links over to a few articles that describe inventing a Scheme to solve things like high paced computer graphics production and large scale inventories.

replies(2): >>45657462 #>>45658194 #
1. andrewflnr ◴[21 Oct 25 16:59 UTC] No.45658194[source]▶
Erlang is really not lisp-like beyond being functional. It's not especially homoiconic, much stricter about mutation than most lisps, and overall has a different focus. IIRC it started as a Prolog dialect, and I think it's still closer to that legacy than anything particularly lispy.
replies(1): >>45665098 #
2. cess11 ◴[22 Oct 25 05:11 UTC] No.45665098[source]▶
I invite people to try it out and then get back to us and tell us who is more right.
replies(1): >>45665302 #
3. andrewflnr ◴[22 Oct 25 05:48 UTC] No.45665302[source]▶
I have written both Erlang and Scheme (and even more Elixir). Have you? They're quite distinct.

I'm genuinely confused why you would be convinced about this. What are the points of similarity that aren't common to all functional languages?