Home > Archive > Scheme > March 2007 > What should my next functional language be?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What should my next functional language be?
|
|
| Nathan Thern 2007-03-16, 7:10 pm |
| When I first discovered scheme, it was unlike any language I had yet
seen (having been schooled as an engineer, I work almost exclusively
with imperative languages). Some recent threads here on c.l.s have
gotten me interested in learning another functional language to expand
my horizons; maybe something like haskell or ocaml.
Any recommendations for a guy forced to work every day with
perl/matlab/fortran who happens to love scheme?
regards,
Nate T.
| |
| Martin Bishop 2007-03-16, 10:07 pm |
| I personally love OCaml, but Haskell is very neat too (although I see
OCaml as a more...practical alternative)
Nathan Thern wrote:
> When I first discovered scheme, it was unlike any language I had yet
> seen (having been schooled as an engineer, I work almost exclusively
> with imperative languages). Some recent threads here on c.l.s have
> gotten me interested in learning another functional language to expand
> my horizons; maybe something like haskell or ocaml.
>
> Any recommendations for a guy forced to work every day with
> perl/matlab/fortran who happens to love scheme?
>
> regards,
> Nate T.
| |
| Max Hailperin 2007-03-16, 10:07 pm |
| Nathan Thern <nthern@yahoo.com> writes:
> When I first discovered scheme, it was unlike any language I had yet
> seen (having been schooled as an engineer, I work almost exclusively
> with imperative languages). Some recent threads here on c.l.s have
> gotten me interested in learning another functional language to expand
> my horizons; maybe something like haskell or ocaml.
>
> Any recommendations for a guy forced to work every day with
> perl/matlab/fortran who happens to love scheme?
>
> regards,
> Nate T.
I'd say it depends on how big a leap you want to take at once -- or
said another way, whether you want to learn just one more functional
language or two. If you want to move forward in two smaller steps,
the first one would be from Scheme to ML and the second one would be
from ML to Haskell. But if you don't have the patience for two new
languages and want to encounter all the novelty at once, then go
straight to Haskell. -max
| |
| Pascal Costanza 2007-03-17, 7:13 pm |
| Nathan Thern wrote:
> When I first discovered scheme, it was unlike any language I had yet
> seen (having been schooled as an engineer, I work almost exclusively
> with imperative languages). Some recent threads here on c.l.s have
> gotten me interested in learning another functional language to expand
> my horizons; maybe something like haskell or ocaml.
>
> Any recommendations for a guy forced to work every day with
> perl/matlab/fortran who happens to love scheme?
If you want to deepen your understanding of the design space of
Lisp/Scheme-style languages, taking a look at ISLISP, Common Lisp and/or
Dylan would be a good idea.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
| |
| gavino 2007-03-21, 7:08 pm |
| Why not simply use scheme?
|
|
|
|
|