1. 28

Rebuilt the site over the past week or so; looking for feedback on it, especially the UI (and just generally showing it off too. :-) ).

  1.  

  2. 4

    As someone who recently said, “i should have a look at common lisp again”, and even installed quicklisp and played around again, I can atest to the fact that I probably would have played more if I had known about this guide.

    I’ve been spending a lot of time in Racket, though, jnstead. I’ve been mucking with lisps for a long time, and racket, as it is today, satisfies me the most. The docs and community are wonderful and extremely helpful.

    1. 5

      I appreciate your comments! Common Lisp can be really hard to start getting going with.

      A lot of people really like Racket. Feel free to revisit the Common Lisp land when you are ready to move on from Racket. ;)

      1. 3

        I appreciate your comments! Common Lisp can be really hard to start getting going with.

        Yeah, I mean, the reason that it didn’t stick the first time I tried all those years ago, was that a friend pointed me to this little language, with a 56 page spec, called Scheme. :)

        There’s a lot of amazing material out there in regards to Common Lisp, but I feel that Common Lisp is big enough that most of the books don’t leave you with a solid understanding. And, of course, none of the books, even Practical Common Lisp, really gives you the guidance to become a productive person. Sure, you might understand how to write some programs, but, it doesn’t prepare you for day to day.

        Part of the reason Racket resonates with me, is simply that I’ve tinkered with a great many Scheme implementations, and Clojure, throughout the last 10 years or so–most recently with Guile. I didn’t stick with Clojure, mostly because of the JVM requirement, but it’s community taught me a lot, and made me appreciate things like SLIME, and tooling like leiningen, which most Scheme systems don’t have.

        Racket, with raco, it’s extensively documented library and package system, Geiser (which was developed for Guile, but works with Racket, and I think chicken, too), and the community in general, however, makes me wish I would have just stuck around to watch it all unfold in 2006 when I first left PLT Scheme behind.

      2. 3

        Agreed on Racket. Racket has a surprisingly good story across a range of tasks. I’ve seldom found myself at a loss for a library–even if I’m too new / novice to figure it out.

        I keep having this fantasy of creating an implementation of the R language for Racket. Then I realize that Racket is already kind of fun to do data tasks in (plotting was, in particular, a pleasant surprise). Maybe creation of a data.frame / pandas like data type in Racket would be enough to get started. Then, maybe if I wait around long enough, someone will take Jake Vanderplas’s idea to create a common dataframe lib for use across Python/R/Julia/etc.

        1. 2

          I keep having this fantasy of creating an implementation of the R language for Racket.

          Seems like a really good idea to me, really. You’d likely just be adding some new syntax on top of a DSL that you create to do the computations, so you might decide to skip the syntax and just work in the raw DSL. :)

      3. [Comment removed by author]

        1. 1

          I think the links at the bottom of the page pop too much, and the links at the top aren’t quite the right color/location. I’ll have to stare at them a bit more later tonight.