> http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025
I liked especially the following rule:
"If it is not tested, it is broken." =)
>
> > Scheme is interpreted, the behavior of the program (say LilyPond) can be
> > changed dynamically.
>
> Just to bring a correction:
> inte
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:46:04 +0200 (EET), Heikki a dit :
> For me, it looks like the first fundamental difference between these two
> syntaxes is that in C++ you have to be extremely careful with type and
> inheritance, whereas in Scheme (seems like) you do not usually need to care.
This s
> =
>
> (define (iterate func k)
> "Produce the function x -> FUNC(FUNC .. (x) .. ) "
> (if (> k 0)
> (lambda (x) (func ((iterate func (1- k)) x)))
> (lambda (x) x)))
>
> (define to-6th-power (iterate sqr 3))
>
>
> =
>
>
I really struggled with whether I should responding to this thread any more.
I'm not trying to stir up controversy, but I hate when I'm unclear, and I end up
being misinterpretted.
I will try to keep this short, and hopefully non-controversial. And then that's
it--no more responses from me to thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > If you're suitably masochistic, then you could come up with a C++
> > solution, but I doubt it would be natural or elegant. Besides, I don't
> > appreciate masochism when it comes to programming.
>
> Actually, this will calculate x ^ (2 ^ 3), so the procedure should b
Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:51:12 -0600, Douglas a dit :
>> (define (iterate func k)
>> "Produce the function x -> FUNC(FUNC .. (x) .. ) "
>> (if (> k 0)
>> (lambda (x) (func ((iterate func (1- k)) x)))
>> (lambda (x) x)))
>>
>> (define to-6th-power (iterate sqr 3))
>>
>> If you're suitably ma
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:51:12PM -0600, Douglas A Linhardt wrote:
> Agreed. We're off target. And I'm not trying to start a flame war.
> I really don't want to start an argument. I just want to I promise
> not to post any more to this thread (unless, of course I change my
> mind ;) ).
Please
Agreed. We're off target. And I'm not trying to start a flame war. I really
don't want to start an argument. I just want to I promise not to post any more
to this thread (unless, of course I change my mind ;) ).
>
> We're going off-topic here, but I'm pretty sure that you know as well
> as I
Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:03:31 +0100, Han-Wen a dit :
> Also, I must admit I learned as much Scheme as I needed to implement
> parts of Lily; I still have only a dim understanding of more esoteric
> Scheme topics like call/cc and hygienic macros.
[there are interesting examples of what can be done
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > lacks a lot of features that I consider necessary for comfortable
> > programming, like garbage collection, reflection and built-in strings,
> > lists, dictionaries, vectors, and first-class functions.
> >
>
> C++ does have built in strings, lists, dictionaries, and
>>* Han-Wen Nienhuys ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>>>We have actually gotten to the point that we have a slight dislike for
>>>C++ as an implementation language. I recommend to learn Scheme and
>>
>>I'm learning C++ to use in sound synthesis programs and to be able to
>>hack lilypond. Could you sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> * Han-Wen Nienhuys ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > We have actually gotten to the point that we have a slight dislike for
> > C++ as an implementation language. I recommend to learn Scheme and
>
> I'm learning C++ to use in sound synthesis programs and to be able to
> ha
* Han-Wen Nienhuys ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> We have actually gotten to the point that we have a slight dislike for
> C++ as an implementation language. I recommend to learn Scheme and
I'm learning C++ to use in sound synthesis programs and to be able to
hack lilypond. Could you share a litte m
* Han-Wen Nienhuys ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Structure & Interpretation of Computer Programs by Abelson and
> Sussman (this book has a very wide scope, and contains way more
> information than you need for LilyPond hacking, but it's a wonderful
> book)
The full book is available here:
http:/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> About a year ago, I decided to learn Scheme in order to understand
> more about Lilypond.SICP was widely recommended and I shelled out
> almost $100US for it and a lab manual.
I can imagine that.
Also, I must admit I learned as much Scheme as I needed to implement
I don't think the "Structure and Interpretation of
Computer Programs" is a particularly good place to learn
Scheme.And I don't agree that it's as good a book
as many people think it is.
About a year ago, I decided to learn Scheme in order to understand
more about Lilypond.SICP was widely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I was wondering if anyone could suggest references they use for the gnu c++
> and python (that'll be a new one for me) that can help get me up to speed for
> linux programming (and hopefully understanding the lines of LilyPond code
> more than just vaguely). If
My main problem with attempting linux programming has been not knowing where
to start. I find when I've tried to jump in on code in one project or
another, I get headaches from errors about not being able to write to a
'variable' I defined because they got me to create what was really an
18 matches
Mail list logo
