Re: Lisp refactoring puzzle
I think the problem with so-called forward looking or highest level languages is that they tend to become domain specific. What Lispers are always saying is construct your own high level language out of your favorite Lisp. Of course no one else will use it then, or even discuss it, unless you have some good buddies. What happens is that high level languages don't end up addressing needs across a large community. The lower down languages can be common denominators across wide swaths of programmers. So we live in this world of roll-your-own on top of the common denominator language. One exception to this is in data base development, where there were some 4th generation languages that had some success, where the needs of mapping business data models onto data base oriented implementation has had a large community. I guess Mathematica, or MatLab in my environment, also address a community of needs for modelling mathematical algorithms, or for doing analysis of data sets. However both the data base field and the math/arithmetic tool field are examples of domains that are narrower than programming in general. Hence those higher level languages could be seen as domain specific, but for domains with lots of users. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: SunLisp III: Lisp jobs and beer in Ft Lauderdale
Are you using your qooxlisp thingy? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: A portable LISP interpreter that includes all the major list-processing functions is described. A complete, annotated listing of the program's code, written in PASCAL, is included.
On Jul 24, 6:42 pm, Emmy Noether emmynoeth...@gmail.com wrote: I have already spent 4 hours scanning/processing to a stage where I got a decent OCR which needs hand-verification of pages. I need 4 or 8 volunteers depending on whether one want to do two pages each or 1 page each. Its an hour of joyful work each for two pages. Sheesh, if you just focussed on typing in, you could be done by now instead of fooling around with OCR and enlisting volunteers for something that amounts to the same beginner experiment that has been done 10,000 times: a fundamental Lisp interpreter. Don't get me wrong, it's a good experiment, but it really needn't require so much trouble... For that matter, why not write your own? Start by replicating McCarthy's group's initial interpreter... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is Scheme/LISP faster than C/C++
On Jun 14, 3:34 pm, Raymond Toy toy.raym...@gmail.com wrote: There was even one example where the C compiler made spectacularly bad code. I only needed 6 pointer registers (the arch has 8), but the compiler decided to use only one or two and spilled and reloaded them from the stack for each use. Yay! That's one of the worst compiler stories I've heard since 1979! How awful! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: C interpreter in Lisp/scheme/python
On Jun 13, 7:07 pm, bolega gnuist...@gmail.com wrote: I am trying to compare LISP/Scheme/Python for their expressiveness. For this, I propose a vanilla C interpreter. I have seen a book which writes C interpreter in C. The criteria would be the small size and high readability of the code. Are there already answers anywhere ? How would a gury approach such a project ? Bolega Holy cow has this gone off topic! To OP - start writing a C context free grammar of a subset of C (arithmetic expressions IMHO are the historical root of C and a good place to start in any case), start writing a parser of a subset of your subset grammar (in a lisp of your chioce - Scheme and CL for instance are going to be pretty much equivalent in this task), and really the rest will be obvious... I'd go that far before posting on the topic again... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is Scheme/LISP faster than C/C++
For crying out loud, the best any compiler can do is make optimal machine language. Many C compilers can do that over most inputs. So can many Lisp compilers if you give the right type data. So it's a moot point. The only point to discuss would be that Scheme - in the R5 version of the spec at least - doesn't have standard way to specify type data unless I am mistaken. Therefore you will find that Scheme compilers add their own syntax for it. Again we are led to a moot point. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is Scheme/LISP faster than C/C++
One point that might be interesting, you do include C++ in your post. Therefore some compare/contrast of C++ class member function invocation rate versus Lisp object method invocation rate might be meaningful. I'm sure if you Google back through comp.lang.lisp you will find plenty on it already. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?
On Jun 10, 8:24 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: What applets? Have you ever seen a java applet? Last time I saw one it must have been fifteen years ago. I have a Java applet that I use for GUI front end on some of my Lisp work - when HTML forms and pages aren't enough because I want to push to the display. It reads strings from a TCP socket connected back to the Lisp application. I used the Java introspection features to interpret limited Lispy syntax: j-exp -- (thing argument-or-j-exp) argument-or-j-exp -- argument* argument-or-j-exp -- j-exp where the thing is some member subclass or member function or variable. If there is an argument list, then if a member function named thing is found it called with the arguments, which must be constants. If there is no member function of name thing, then if there is a member scalar variable of name thing, then the first argument is coerced and assigned to that member variable. On the other hand, if there is a nested j-exp, then thing is taken as a member class variable, and the process starts over with that variable as context. You subclass this applet to add GUI to it, and you better like Java. Any GUI listeners in the applet have prints that send similar string expressions back to the Lisp app, which is also a subclassed from a simple prototype, and the methods are called with the instance as the first argument. Instances are generated as web browsers connect to startup routines published via paserve. N e e d l e s s t o s a y , the Java introspection side, along with the parsing of the expressions (which is about as easy of a grammar as you can get), took about 3 days, while the Lisp side took about 10 minutes to write the 5 lines needed for READing and calling APPLY. (So far I avoid JavaScript - so this whole qooxlisp thing, I don't know. Although I understand no need to actually write JavaScript, but still I try to avoid running it in the browser. But I don't know, cells sounds good to me, so this qooxlisp thing might end up changing my ways...) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: A Exhibition Of Tech Geekers Incompetence: Emacs whitespace-mode
On Aug 14, 1:01 pm, vippstar vipps...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you fill your website with junk? The OP made it clear: Just wanted to express some frustration with whitespace-mode. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
