John Carmack working on Scheme as a VR scripting language

Re:John Carmack working on Scheme as a VR scripting language by 59nadir on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @10:47AM (#9812143)

    (let* ([x (+ 1 2)]
           [y (+ x 3)])
      (* x y))

Less ambiguity, all of the clarity of what is what. I don't get why you use other delimiters for your Clojure code, but have this view that they can't be used in other Lisps/Schemes.

(You will also have to use `let*` in (most?) schemes because the binding for y has absolutely nothing to do with the binding for x and so cannot be used in the binding of y.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack working on Scheme as a VR scripting language by moonchrome on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @01:05PM (#9813404)

>I don't get why you use other delimiters for your Clojure code

Do other delimiters mean the same thing as in Clojure tho ? I only know Clojure - in Clojure [] - vector- is a different data structure from () - linked list - which is different from {} - hash map. Is this similar to Racket or is it all just lists in Racket ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack working on Scheme as a VR scripting language by klibertp on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @02:10PM (#9813926)

In Racket all kinds of parenthesis are equivalent, using one or the other is a matter of convention and readability.

I think the newest Scheme standard takes the same approach.

[ Parent | on HN ]