Thanks for the summary Wilhelm! Regards, Kashyap On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:33 PM Wilhelm Fitzpatrick <raf...@well.com> wrote:
> Only topics whose questioners were present were discussed, so we didn't > talk about the interpreter only approach, holding it as a topic for future > session. > > Alex addressed the "array avoidance" question, explaining the how arrays > would complicate the core single data type implementation and approach of > picolisp (that single data type being the cell). Further he talked about > how most approaches that in other languages fall to arrays by default can > be handled through picolisp lists, or creating more purpose built data > structures rather than reaching for an array. Finally he showed how > picolisp's native code interface can be used to malloc a section of heap > memory and address it directly to create a direct access array like > structure if that is absolutely required. > > Then the question of how picolisp interacts with Java was discussed, and > Alex showed examples in the Pilbox, and showed the named pipe mechanism > used to send commands to the Java side and receive responses back to the > picolisp world. > > Olaf showed off his experimentation of using picolisp to communicate with > JavaScript running in a browser to dynamically update SVG objects, creating > animation. Olaf & Alex dug into some of the issues in the original > experiment, and one source of problems was that the ServerEvent facility > that Olaf was using only sends a single line at time to the other side. > > Olaf's motto for the evening: "when you read the picolisp documentation, > you have to read every word" > > There may have a been a few other small topics that I am failing to > recollect. > > -wilhelm > On 11/6/20 8:03 AM, C K Kashyap wrote: > > As bad an excuse that it may sound, it is the truth - I messed up my alarm > setting (AM vs PM) :) and missed the meeting. > > Could I request someone to please summarize what was discussed? > particularly about the "interpreter only" approach. If it was not discussed > then perhaps I can request Alex to write down his thoughts. > > Regards, > Kashyap > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Kevin Ednalino <kcednal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Personally, I work business hours so Friday mornings I'm generally >> unavailable (GMT). >> >> I think at least one on the weekday in the afternoon/evening and one on >> the weekend might be the most convenient with the latter more convenient >> for non-European timezones. For example, if it's hosted on Saturday at noon >> then it'd be roughly morning for the Americas and evening for Asia. >> >> If doing 2x meetings a month, then alternating each month with the >> weekday/weekend day might maximize availability like if someone is busy >> during the week and/or busy during the weekend (if busy both times, just >> have to wait untill the next meeting!): >> >> Month: Week 1 / Week 2 >> Nov: Wed/Sat >> Dec: Fri/Sun >> Jan: Wed/Sat >> ... >> >> Or even alternate just weekends weekly between Saturday and Sunday. >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:42 PM Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 01:23:13PM -0500, r cs wrote: >>> > Raw video would be welcomed. The timing of the PilCon can be >>> challenging >>> > in some time zones. >>> >>> Independent of the recording issue, the current scheduling is not an >>> absolute >>> must. I did a proposal initially, and nobody complained, so we stayed >>> with it. >>> >>> Should we consider a change for the future? Perhaps Saturday would be >>> better >>> than Friday? And/or some other UTC time(s)? Should we try some democratic >>> decision process? >>> >>> ☺/ A!ex >>> >>> -- >>> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe >>> >>>
