Subject:
|
Re: Scheme
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 May 1999 03:26:18 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Rich Clemens <clemens@wvwc+nospam+.edu>
|
Viewed:
|
940 times
|
| |
|
|
A simple scheme interface such as (sensor <num> <type> <mode>) or (motor
<letter> <direction> <speed>) could prove a valuable addition to scheme
teaching functions. Students could explore functions (i.e. just small
"programs") to include the ability to control RCX objects not just character
sets or lines on a screen. I tend to view functions/programs as a "brick"
with inputs, outputs, and processes.
--
Richard Clemens
Associate Professor
Computer Science Department
West Virginia Wesleyan College
Buckhannon, West Virginia 26201
clemens@wvwc.edu
304.473.8421
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Lind <ejlind@brain.uccs.edu>
To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Scheme
> It strikes me that Scheme is largely an academic language. Granted, there • are
> a few Scheme devotees out there who worship the language, but they seem to • be
> all at MIT or Rice. I think they've even written modules for web • programming
> with Scheme, but I have to wonder what psychotropic drugs they were on • when
> they did it. Scheme, like most functional languages, is based on • functions.
> One doesn't store values in variables, you have a function that returns • the
> value, which is then piped into another function, etc. I have to say I • learned
> recursion really well from it (as there are no iterative constructs, all
> looping is done via recursion), but I wouldn't want to use it in daily • life. I
> don't think it's appropriate for the RCX (to bring this back to oblego), • as it
> is a pure interpreted language and the stack costs for it would be huge.
>
> In lugnet.robotics, Alex Wetmore writes:
> > From: Joel Shafer <joel@connect.net>
> > > Could you give a brief description of scheme? I've heard that it is a
> > > fairly high level language and I know that a compiler or interpreter • exists
> > > for it on linux.
> >
> > http://www.scheme.org/
> >
> > In my view Scheme is the most useful subset of lisp, designed to make a
> > small, elegant, functional language. This is compared to Common Lisp, • which
> > is kind of a superset of the various lisp-dialects, meant to contain
> > everything.
> >
> > Note: I am not a lisp-expert, I just used Scheme in one of my university
> > classes, and have played around with Common-lisp a little bit. I would
> > probably recommend playing around with PbForth on the RCX. Forth is a
> > lightweight, interpreted, stack-based language. It doesn't have lambda
> > functions (I don't think it does at least), but has a similar sort of
> > environment to most scheme systems (you can type directly into the
> > interpreter).
> >
> > alex
> >
> > --
> > Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
> --
> Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Scheme
|
| It strikes me that Scheme is largely an academic language. Granted, there are a few Scheme devotees out there who worship the language, but they seem to be all at MIT or Rice. I think they've even written modules for web programming with Scheme, but (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
