David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are possible in lisp,
I suspect that their utility is minimal.
Ever heard
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:53:47AM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:53:47AM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and
David F. Place wrote:
I don't deny that all of the things you mentioned are wonderful
indeed. I just wonder if they really could only be done in lisp or
even most conveniently.
Obviously, if you can do it in Lisp, you can do it in any
Turing-complete language; in the worst case, you
On Sep 21, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
Ever heard of the loop macro?
Yes, the loop macro is a good example for the argument against lisp.
Lisp has features to support iteration that date back to the time
before it was understood that tail recursion is equivalent to
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sep 21, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
Ever heard of the loop macro?
Yes, the loop macro is a good example for the argument against lisp.
Lisp has features to support iteration that date back to the time
before it was understood that
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:12:16PM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:53:47AM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
On Sep 20, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:
That, in a nutshell, is Lisp's key strength. It uses the same
structure for code as for data, which makes it very easy to add new
language features.
I assume that you refer to `eval' and the fact it operates on conses
and symbols. Beyond
David F. Place wrote:
That, in a nutshell, is Lisp's key strength. It uses the same
structure for code as for data, which makes it very easy to add new
language features.
I assume that you refer to `eval' and the fact it operates on conses
and symbols. Beyond the extremely
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are possible in lisp,
I suspect that their utility is minimal.
On Sep 20, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Glynn Clements
. . .
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are possible in lisp,
I suspect that their utility is minimal.
As to utility, quite the contrary,
I don't deny that all of the things you mentioned are wonderful
indeed. I just wonder if they really could only be done in lisp or
even most conveniently. Many years ago I read a paper by Phil Wadler
about logic programing using a functional language. I think it was
called something
Bill Wood wrote:
As to utility, quite the contrary, I think. Offhand I can think of the
screamer package for Common Lisp, which provides non-deterministic
mechanisms for use in backtracking applications. For a while in the
80's there was practically a cottage industry implementing various
Am Freitag, 16. September 2005 16:46 schrieben Sie:
. . .
In Haskell, code is data too because code in the sense of imperative
actions is described by IO values. You cannot analyse them. But you can
use your do expressions etc. to construct action descriptions with a more
general
Am Freitag, 16. September 2005 18:40 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Bearing this in mind, and hoping you can see where I'm coming from,
I think my question is: shouldn't you guys be using Lisp?
Lisp is impure, weakly typed and has way too many parentheses. Why
would
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:56:10PM -0400, David F. Place wrote:
On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:
Haskell's safety and consistency can get in the way, while Lisp's
freedom can be quite unsafe and inconsistent.
and lazy evaluation eliminates 99% of the need for macros in
This is not a troll, honest, so please bear with me ...
I'm a C/C++/VBA programmer (although the former 2 are several years old
for me), with a sprinkling of Python. Needless to say, I was looking to
see if there were any better ways of doing things. I've given things
like Ruby and Scheme a
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:34:57PM +0100, Mark Carter wrote:
This is not a troll, honest, so please bear with me ...
It struck me that Lisp was, perhaps, the Ultimate Programming
Language, the One True Language to rule them all; except that I always
kept abandoning it for one reason or
Mark Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bearing this in mind, and hoping you can see where I'm coming from, I
think my question is: shouldn't you guys be using Lisp?
One of the early implementations of Haskell (the Yale Haskell Compiler,
now defunct) was written in Common Lisp.
Regards,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:34:57PM +0100, Mark Carter wrote:
Bearing this in mind, and hoping you can see where I'm coming from, I
think my question is: shouldn't you guys be using Lisp?
Lisp is impure, weakly typed and has way too many parentheses. Why would
we use lisp? It seems to be
Harri Haataja wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:34:57PM +0100, Mark Carter wrote:
This is not a troll, honest, so please bear with me ...
It struck me that Lisp was, perhaps, the Ultimate Programming
Language, the One True Language to rule them all; except that I always
kept abandoning it for
On 16/09/05, Mark Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a troll, honest, so please bear with me ...
I'm a C/C++/VBA programmer (although the former 2 are several years old
for me), with a sprinkling of Python. Needless to say, I was looking to
see if there were any better ways of doing
David Roundy wrote:
Bearing this in mind, and hoping you can see where I'm coming from, I
think my question is: shouldn't you guys be using Lisp?
Lisp is impure, weakly typed and has way too many parentheses. Why would
we use lisp? It seems to be lacking almost all the advantages of
I have faced these issues twice, always starting from Lisp and moving
on somewhere else. There's more on my travails at http://
wagerlabs.com/tech and http://wagerlabs.com/uptick.
I implemented a poker engine in Lisp but it appeared that to deliver
it on Windows, Linux and Mac OSX I would
Mark Carter wrote:
The free ones that work on
Windows are GPL, which means that although somebody might be tempted to
use them for personal projects, he is not going to sell the idea to his
boss that stuff should be developed in Lisp.
Nonsense. The copyright notice for GNU CLisp
Am Freitag, 16. September 2005 15:06 schrieb Mark Carter:
Plus you can use macros to extend the language.
I don't know really about LISP macros but aren't they a bit like Template
Haskell?
Since Haskell (even without Template Haskell) is a small but flexible language
you can construct
Am Freitag, 16. September 2005 15:29 schrieb Glynn Clements:
David Roundy wrote:
Bearing this in mind, and hoping you can see where I'm coming from, I
think my question is: shouldn't you guys be using Lisp?
Lisp is impure, weakly typed and has way too many parentheses. Why would
we
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Mark Carter wrote:
This is not a troll, honest, so please bear with me ...
I'm a C/C++/VBA programmer (although the former 2 are several years old
for me), with a sprinkling of Python. Needless to say, I was looking to
see if there were any better ways of doing
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Freitag, 16. September 2005 15:06 schrieb Mark Carter:
Plus you can use macros to extend the language.
I don't know really about LISP macros but aren't they a bit like Template
I wrote a Lisp macro once, and realised that it had a power that I
hadn't
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
Bearing this in mind, and hoping you can see where I'm coming from, I
think my question is: shouldn't you guys be using Lisp?
Lisp is impure, weakly typed and has way too many parentheses. Why
would
Glynn Clements wrote:
Every other language (including Haskell) tends to have the problem
that eventually you will encounter a situation where the language's
own worldview gets in the way.
Or, to put it another way: if Haskell is so flexible, why do we need
Template Haskell? I can't imagine a
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, September 16, 2005, 6:30:45 PM, you wrote:
WJ more functional. Strong typing may be too restricting if the type system is
WJ not powerful enough. But since Haskell's type system is very powerful, I
WJ practically never miss dynamic typing.
really, we have dunamic
Hello Mark,
Friday, September 16, 2005, 7:42:46 PM, you wrote:
MC facilities. All I know is, if Haskell Templates provide no greater power
MC than those of C++, be prepared for the Lispers to be, shall we say,
MC somewhat condescending about them. ;)
Template Haskell has nothing common with C
On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:
Haskell's safety and
consistency can get in the way, while Lisp's freedom can be quite
unsafe and inconsistent.
I have many years of experience designing and implementing commercial
software in lisp and I strongly agree with the second
34 matches
Mail list logo
