Re: interactive scheme

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:20:47 -0600, Tydr Schnubbis <fake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Arctic Fidelity wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:05:50 -0600, Tydr Schnubbis <fake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Pascal Bourguignon wrote: 
Tydr Schnubbis <fake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Is there a good interactive Scheme interpreter available somewhere?
Something that makes it easy to try out simple things, and has a
usable command history function.  Something like Python's IDLE.

I've tried Chicken scheme and DrScheme, but I didn't quite like them.
I don't want to have to retype a 10-line procedure just because I made
a small mistake. Or do I have to resort to non-interactive use for
trying out things while I'm learning scheme? 
 You could try mzscheme inside an emacs inferior-lisp buffer.
 I actually use most often pseudo-scheme (a r4rs running on Common
Lisp) in my clisp running in an emacs inferior-lisp buffer.  You
benefit from the standard emacs editing and comint history.
 In emacs, there's also slime, and its swank module that has been
ported to one scheme implementation.

I forgot to mention I'm on Windows...

My unix/emacs days are over, and I'm not going back.
Oh what? You don't like Emacs? :-P If you want to know the truth, I find working with Emacs in Windows to be much easier and more productive (by utilizing paredit.el) than using some other IDE like DrScheme. I don't know what you plan to do though, so I don't know if that fits what you want to do. Emacs really is a pretty powerful and easy to use regarding an inferior-scheme buffer.
- Arctic

I'm watching the Abelson/Sussman Scheme lectures, and I just want to try out basic stuff while I'm learning. I'm not going to actually use scheme for anything useful. No plans yet, anyway.

Well, if you are just trying stuff out, then I am pretty sure Chez and many others have enough of a history for that.

About emacs, I guess I'm just being lazy for using visual studio instead (for C/C++). But I guess you think call browsers, class browsers, and graphical debuggers are for chickens...

Hah, well, from what I saw of Visual Studio, honestly, I thought it was a lot more work compared to what I was doing. Granted, I didn't get very deep into it, but it seemed like someone took a bunch of buttons, gave them random, obfuscated names, put them all in a hat, and then tossed the hat onto a grid and called it Visual Studio. :-P

Then again, I think there is a little different method that one uses when working with Scheme over C. When I am programming in C, I do in fact have a graphical debugger and some other things that make life nice and easy. But whenever I program in Scheme, I usually find that much of the extra "features" of something like Visual Studio just seem to create a lot of cruft for what I want to do. I do find the graphical "trace" lines in DrScheme to be pretty convenient though. I do find MIT Scheme's debugger to be really nice. I plan on expirementing more with Chez's debugger to see if it has anything I like in it.

And I agree with you, I don't really like Emacs either, but I can't beat it (yet) for developing Lisp code. :-)

- Arctic

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.

Quantcast