Re: Scheme is too complicated

[Clark McGrew <mcgrew@ale.physics.sunysb.edu>]

>>>>> "Erik" == Erik  <erik@msc.tamu.edu> writes:

    Erik> I'm just getting to the "solving everyday programming tasks"
    Erik> myself.  The learning curve on scheme has been steeper for
    Erik> me than on any previous language (although it just barely
    Erik> beats learning the OO paradigm for C++).  I'd previously
    Erik> been in the habit of reaching the skill level needed to
    Erik> solve most basic problems in well under a week, but Scheme
    Erik> seems to want more of my time than that.

I have to second this.  I'm a phyicist, but I'd been programming for
more years than I want to admit before I got to scheme.  Plus I've had
reasonable amount comp theory in the past.  I also was a moderately
accomplished ELisp hacker.

Scheme is just different.  I found it difficult because it's so
simple.  Its also the most flexible language I've ever seen.  As far
as I can tell scheme encompasses every programming technique ever
developed in a straight forward and concise way.

I see Scheme as same progression toward simplicity in language theory
as exists in physics.  Aristotlian theory does a good job describing
the world around us and seems simple, but once you get into the
details it's really complicated.  It has all sorts of special cases
and sometimes it just fails.  On the other hand, I can write the
modern understanding of the universe as a single equation on one sheet
of paper.  That understanding has almost no special cases and is
internally consistent.  

I've been studying physics for decades now, and I can't say I truly
understand the single equation... 

Cheers,

Clark