stjet/hedgeblog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

new post

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
stjet
2024-05-27 00:09:56 +00:00
parent 7718424958
commit 00f8b193ce
4 changed files with 37 additions and 8 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
posts/golfing_and_scheming.md
View File

@@ -157,15 +157,15 @@ I was initially disappointed to see Scheme missing many "basic" utility function
It's been a while since I had so much fun programming. To further learn Scheme, I then wrote my first project in Scheme, [rescli](https://github.com/jetstream0/rescli), a CLI interface for [Reservoir](https://github.com/jetstream0/reservoir), a bookmark organizer app I made. I'll talk about those in a different post.
I also tried to learn Ocaml but just couldn't get over the horrible, horrible, syntax. Maybe I'll try again later (ReasonML's more familiar syntax might help).
## Why Learn Scheme?
But anyways, why did I choose to learn Scheme?
But anyways, how did I end up learning scheme?
After writing Mingde, and a few Rust projects, I was thinking a lot about types. Specifically, how much I loved them (a lot). I was also a bit curious about functional programming.
After writing [Mingde](https://github.com/stjet/mingde), and a few Rust projects, I was thinking a lot about types. Specifically, how much I loved them (hint: a lot). I was also curious about functional programming.
Lisp Scheme is dynamically, not statically, typed (Typed Racket, which is similar, does though), which was a downside. But it's simplicity and lack of bloat was compelling enough for me to give it a try. I'm glad I did. Again, writing in Scheme has been the most fun I've had programming in months, possibly years. Functional programming really is a different, more fun, and arguably better way to think about programming. Avoiding variable mutation and recursing instead of iterating is just... fun. Having the entire language reference as a 3.3 mb PDF is pretty neat too. And I haven't even written a macro yet!
Naturally, I looked for languages that combined both. Idris I simply could not wrap my head around (and might just be too obscure, even for me), and I found it too difficult to get into OCaml. I will probably try OCaml again later, maybe with ReasonML for more familiar syntax instead. Haskell is also on my "try later" list.
Lisp Scheme is dynamically, not statically, typed (Typed Racket, a similar language, can be statically typed though), which was a bummer and initially discouraged me from trying it. But it's simplicity and lack of bloat was compelling enough for me to give it a try. I'm glad I did. Again, writing in Scheme has been the most fun I've had programming in months, possibly years. Functional programming really is a different, more fun, and arguably better way to think about programming. Avoiding variable mutation and recursing instead of iterating is just... fun. Having the entire language reference as a 3.3 mb PDF is pretty neat too. And I haven't even written a macro yet!
S-expressions (the name for all those parentheses) are really simple to understand, and everything in general is pretty simple to understand. Do a brief read of Scheme Programming, then TSPL4 for reference.