Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 21 Jul., 06:57, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: Scott Burson wrote: Have you looked at ECL? http://ecls.sourceforge.net/ I've used it only a little, so I can't vouch for its stability, but it fits the threading and license requirements (well, some corporate lawyers have trouble with the LGPL, but I think it's usable). I didn't tried it myself, but looks like it is not very stable: http://www.mail-archive.com/application-buil...@lispniks.com/msg01069.html I'm not sure if it is fair to post a reference to a single post by someone without context and without having used ECL. If there are stability problems, people can report to the ECL mailing list. The maintainers are very active. Frank, I have seen you constructive and posting code a year ago. What happened? Several messages of yours I've seen here are now going in the direction of been mostly useless. I thought you could do better. If you are no longer interested in Lisp with no first hand usage, why not switch to comp.lang.misc or some other random place? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's only one way to do it philosophy isn't good?
On Jun 27, 10:51 am, Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally use Emacs Lisp every day and I think Hedgehog Lisp (a tiny functional Lisp dialect intended for embedded platforms like cell phones--the runtime is just 20 kbytes) is a very cool piece of code. But using CL for new, large system development just seems crazy today. It seems that many of the hardcore Lisp developers are busy developing the core of new airline system software (pricing, reservation, ...) in Common Lisp. It replaced already some mainframes... Kind of crazy. I guess that counts as very large systems development. There is sure also lots of Python involved, IIRC. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Programming challenge: wildcard exclusion in cartesian products
I had a crack at it in Lisp. My version doesn't work - but of greater concern to me is that it doesn't appear nearly as compact as the C version. Anyway, here's my Lisp code (no prizes for guessing that I'm a noob to Lisp): Lot's of things you can write more compact. But compact is not always the best way to write source. For me the most important criteria is that I can return to some source after, say, a year absence and everything is clear and readable again. (defconstant delta 2654435769 ) ; delta= 0x9E3779B9 (defconstant +delta+ #x9E3779B9) (defun floorn (n) (nth-value 0 (floor n))) is above used? (defun (val num-bytes) Right-shift positive integer val by num-bytes (let* (t1 t2) (setf t1 (expt 2 num-bytes)) (setf t2 (/ val t1)) (floor t2))) (defun (val num-bytes) Right-shift positive integer val by num-bytes (floor (/ val (expt 2 num-bytes (defun transform (v1 v2 v3 v4) (let (t1 t2 t3) (setf t1 (4 v1)) (setf t2 (expt v2 v1)) (setf t3 (expt v3 ( v2 5))) (+ t1 t2 t3 v4))) (defun transform (v1 v2 v3 v4) (+ (4 v1) (expt v2 v1) (expt v3 ( v2 5)) v4)) and so on... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
