Re: Learning LISP; Scheme vs elisp.

[Xah]

On Aug 1, 5:45 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> I've decided I ought to train myself in the most elegant programming
> weapon ---http://xkcd.com/297/--- so I've started working through
> _The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_.

Scheme being a beautiful lang is rather a myth.

Common Lisp wouldn't agree in any way.
Mathematica programer like myself will laugh at that thought.
Basically any modern functional lang will also laugh at the idea.

I myself, about 10 years ago, thought that Scheme is the most
beautiful lang, just like you, from reading the web forums and faqs,
as well read the SICP book in 1999 and r4rs. I wouldn't say Scheme is
in anyway beautiful or elegant. Even one of its quality, minimalism,
is completely screwed up in r6rs which happened last year.

See:

Proliferation of Computing Languages
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/new_langs.html

Fundamental Problems of Lisp
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lisp_problems.html

How Purely Nested Notation Limits The Language's Utility
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/notations.html

My First Encounter And Impression Of Lisp
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/Personal_dir/xah_comp_exp.html

> In the long term I hope I'll be able to customize Emacs more in its
> native way instead of wrapping external Perl programs in
> shell-command-on-region (as I often do now).
>
> Any tips on transferring knowledge between Scheme and elisp?

that doesn't make sense unless you are already a scheme expert and is
exposed to elisp for the first time. And in that case, all you need is
a one-page summary of major differences. I'm not aware there's one but
there are a couple that summarize the diff between Scheme and CL.
Elisp is close to CL, so that would help.

Since you seems new to both, the comparison won't mean much. You can
start with my elisp tutorial, if you are already a expert of a
language.

http://xahlee.org/emacs/elisp.html

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄