Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!uwslh!lishka From: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Scheme and XLISP Message-ID: <366@uwslh.UUCP> Date: 14 Aug 88 15:27:08 GMT References: <11655@cisunx.UUCP> <4480@cbmvax.UUCP> <11732@cisunx.UUCP> <11733@cisunx.UUCP> Reply-To: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison, State Hygiene Lab Lines: 69 In article <11733@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > >I got Scheme from comp.binaries.amiga, and I've had XLISP for a while. >I don't know much about LISP, but after I graduate I'd like to spend >some time learning. Any suggestions about which would be more >appropriate for learning? Or which is better overall? Or anything >else you'd care to add? Scheme was developed around 1975 (at MIT, I think) to be used a language to teach students the art of computer programming. It is a much better language (IMHO) for learning than Lisp, even though it is a direct descendant from the latter. Whereas there are many idiosyncracies in most Lisp's, Scheme was designed to be much more uniform and the concepts it embodies much more easy to understand. This is why it is used in the Abelson & Sussman text (I forget the name), which is the text used in the "introductory" programming course for Comp Sci majors at MIT. [BTW, it is a *really* good book, even for more "experienced" programmers...I highly recommend it.] One of the big drawbacks with Scheme is that it was designed to be an educational language, much like Pascal. From what I've heard, all the features of a true "production" language are not there, which makes it harder to write real-world applications with Scheme. The situation is very similar to writing real-world applications with a vanilla Pascal. One of the interesting features of Lisp is that if you learn one version, it really isn't hard to learn others. I've programmed quite a bit in Xerox Interlisp and LOOPS (Lisp Object Oriented Programming System), use XLisp here at home, have hacked in Gnu-Emacs Lisp to extend my editor (even wrote a small program in it), have fooled around with Common Lisp a bit, and prefer this tiny Scheme interpreter I have lying around. However, I have never had any real problems switching between them, as long as I know what the various command names are. After you understand the concepts in any Lisp, the other versions will be rather easy to learn; there will still be some differences, but not as different as, say, C and Pascal. My advice is to start off learning Scheme. It is a really well designed educational language. After that (or even at the same time) you can pick up XLisp real easily. XLisp has the slight advantage of having some object-oriented commands in it, but if you read the Abelson and Sussman text, they show how to do Object-Oriented programming in Scheme (relatively painless). BTW, if you want the reference to the above mentioned text, mail me and I will dig it up. It is a *really* good book. >Eric Kennedy >ejkst@cisunx.UUCP -Chris p.s. I do not have access to comp.src.amiga. I have heard a lot of mention of a Scheme grabbed from there lately. Does anyone know if this is on a Fish-Disk? If not, could someone mail it to me over the net if it is not too big (although it probably is)? All I have in the way of Scheme is this tiny interpreter named SIOD, which is a lot of fun, but is too small for serious programming (it is *only* ~1300 lines of C !). -- Christopher Lishka ...!{rutgers|ucbvax|...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene lishka%uwslh.uucp@cs.wisc.edu Immunology Section (608)262-1617 lishka@uwslh.uucp ---- "...Just because someone is shy and gets straight A's does not mean they won't put wads of gum in your arm pits." - Lynda Barry, "Ernie Pook's Commeek: Gum of Mystery"