On Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:48:47 PM UTC+13, pansz wrote:
In theory, a turing complete language could do anything.
brainfuck (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck) is Turing complete...
Regards, John Little
--
--
You received this message from the vim_use maillist.
Do not
Or How about this?
https://github.com/mattn/lisper-vim
#Sorry_It_is_my_joke
--
--
You received this message from the vim_use maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this
* 2010-03-29 21:01 (+0100), Antony Scriven wrote:
On 28 March 2010 09:25, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi wrote:
DISCLAIMER: My tests may suck so I suggest everyone do better ones.
:-)
:-). Well I think I should mention that GForth is VM based, or it was
last I looked.
More accurately GForth
* 2010-03-26 03:21 (+0100), Tony Mechelynck wrote:
[...] it was (I think) a simple example of FORTH, though it doesn't do
justice to the language. I doubt Lisp is more powerful; I suppose it
might be *as* powerful and I'm not sure about speed -- oh well, let's
give it the benefit of the doubt
* 2010-03-26 00:45 (UTC), Antony Scriven wrote:
On 25 March 2010 23:17, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
Lisp looks like Volapük to me;
Then check out the SICP lectures. The videos are online for free. The
first one teaches you the basics of Lisp (well, Scheme) in a few
minutes, and it (or maybe the
On 15/02/10 23:33, Ben Schmidt wrote:
[...]
Vim is essentially an imperative procedural language. Lisp is
essentially a functional language. Most people find imperative languages
easier to understand because they're a bit more like recipes and a bit
less like Mathematics! Some people find the
On 25 March 2010 23:17, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 15/02/10 23:33, Ben Schmidt wrote:
[...]
Vim is essentially an imperative procedural language.
Lisp is essentially a functional language. Most people
find imperative languages easier to understand because
they're a bit more like
On 26/03/10 01:45, Antony Scriven wrote:
On 25 March 2010 23:17, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
[...]
AFAICT, the collection of Vim plugins run the whole gamut
from the most serious to the most fun; but of course, for
heavy number-crunching, vimscript has the same
performance
Teemu Likonen 写道:
* 2010-01-24 21:13 (-0800), Peng Yu wrote:
I know Lisp is very powerful. Is the language in vim as powerful?
No, it's not. It seems that there are still unique features in Lisp
which are not supported in any other language. In this sense Lisp is the
most powerful language
On 19 February 2010 07:34, bill lam cbill@gmail.com wrote:
ven, 19 Feb 2010, Teemu Likonen skribis:
[...]
Good. Then perhaps (reduce function sequence) is
also in the category of easy-to-read. I thought I had
found an area in Lisp code which is difficult to
understand
ven, 19 Feb 2010, Antony Scriven skribis:
Not 100% sure what you mean here, but writing HOFs shouldn't
be complex. I hope you don't mind me switching to what is
a more familiar language for me.
zipWith = function(fn,list1,list2)
map(function(val) fn(val[0],val[1]),
On 20 February 2010 00:38, bill lam cbill@gmail.com wrote:
ven, 19 Feb 2010, Antony Scriven skribis:
Not 100% sure what you mean here, but writing HOFs
shouldn't be complex. I hope you don't mind me
switching to what is a more familiar language for me.
zipWith =
Are there some reliable sources which indicate that Perl and Lisp code
are not usually read, debugged or fixed after the code has been
initially written? Or is there a general consensus or verifiable data
that fixing problems in Perl or Lisp code takes more time than fixing
problems in code
* 2010-02-18 19:32 (+1100), Ben Schmidt wrote:
Are there some reliable sources which indicate that Perl and Lisp
code are not usually read, debugged or fixed after the code has been
initially written? Or is there a general consensus or verifiable data
that fixing problems in Perl or Lisp code
But really Common-Lispers would write the same functionality with this:
(reduce #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
So cl with its vast standard library provides a function for that.
That's cool of course but nothing stops you from implementing such a
function in vimscript, perl or whatever.
function!
* 2010-02-18 04:53 (-0800), Tom Link wrote:
So cl with its vast standard library provides a function for that.
That's cool of course but nothing stops you from implementing such a
function in vimscript, perl or whatever.
Now that was a piece of code which is difficult for me. I guess it's now
* 2010-02-18 14:14 (+0200), Teemu Likonen wrote:
But really Common-Lispers would write the same functionality with this:
(reduce #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
Or
(apply #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
--
You received this message from the vim_use maillist.
For more information, visit
(defun sum (list)
(loop for item in list
summing item))
I'm also sure that the last and shortest Common Lisp version is the
easiest for me.
I must say that it barely counts, though. It's borderline on defining a
sum function using a sum function.
On the whole, I liked
Dnia 18-02-2010 o godz. 13:14 Teemu Likonen napisał(a):
(reduce #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
To get sum of table elements you can use this in Vim:
exe 'echo ' join([1,2,3,4], '+')
I know this is not what are you really talking about but I really,
really like this trick :)
m.
--
You received
Now that was a piece of code which is difficult for me. I guess it's now
Vim script's turn to be unreadable. :-)
Well, if you included the definition of reduce in your code, your
example wouldn't be that clean either. It is really pointless to show
off library functions that hide the messy
* 2010-02-18 07:13 (-0800), Tom Link wrote:
Well, if you included the definition of reduce in your code, your
example wouldn't be that clean either. It is really pointless to show
off library functions that hide the messy details.
Hmm, first I'd like to emphasize that I was not trying to say
2010/2/18 Mikołaj Machowski mikm...@wp.pl:
Dnia 18-02-2010 o godz. 13:14 Teemu Likonen napisał(a):
(reduce #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
To get sum of table elements you can use this in Vim:
exe 'echo ' join([1,2,3,4], '+')
I know this is not what are you really talking about but I
On 18 February 2010 12:53, Tom Link micat...@gmail.com wrote:
But really Common-Lispers would write the same functionality with this:
(reduce #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
Well that's just (+ 1 2 3 4) :-)
So cl with its vast standard library provides a function
for that. That's cool of
On 18 February 2010 12:14, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi wrote:
[...]
Higher-order functions are standard stuff in Lisp but
probably weird for many people because the the concept is
not common and the feature of first-class functions is
not available in many languages. Nevertheless
* 2010-02-18 20:21 (UTC), Antony Scriven wrote:
On 18 February 2010 12:14, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi wrote:
Higher-order functions are standard stuff in Lisp but probably weird
for many people because the the concept is not common and the feature
of first-class functions is not available
ven, 19 Feb 2010, Teemu Likonen skribis:
* 2010-02-18 20:21 (UTC), Antony Scriven wrote:
On 18 February 2010 12:14, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi wrote:
Higher-order functions are standard stuff in Lisp but probably weird
for many people because the the concept is not common and the
Lisp is essentially a functional language.
People keep saying that but Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp are really
multi-paradigm languages (Common Lisp more so).
Yeah, I know. But I think the 'essence' of the language is more
functional, really. Even 'functional' is used pretty loosely,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:45, Bram Moolenaar b...@moolenaar.net wrote:
Comparatively, Vimscript is a mess!
I'll bite.
One of the most important aspects of a programming or scripting language
is that it's easy to read back. Only then can one figure out what it's
doing exactly and easily
Innocent question incoming: Wouldn't it be a good idea to write a
binding of Vimscript in, say, Python or Lua or any other more widely
spread language and ship it with vim?
You mean like it already does? :)
It has interfaces for Python, Perl, Ruby, TCL, and MZScheme. You
can find them
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 10:26:47 am Tim Chase wrote:
Innocent question incoming: Wouldn't it be a good idea to
write a binding of Vimscript in, say, Python or Lua or any
other more widely spread language and ship it with vim?
You mean like it already does? :)
It has interfaces
* 2010-02-17 12:45 (+0100), Bram Moolenaar wrote:
One of the most important aspects of a programming or scripting
language is that it's easy to read back. Only then can one figure out
what it's doing exactly and easily spot mistakes. Both Perl and Lisp
fail miserably on this aspect.
Are
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 17:26, Tim Chase v...@tim.thechases.com wrote:
Innocent question incoming: Wouldn't it be a good idea to write a
binding of Vimscript in, say, Python or Lua or any other more widely
spread language and ship it with vim?
You mean like it already does? :)
It has
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:34:41 +0200, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi
wrote:
I have no answers to those but I sense a danger in discussions like
this. It can easily go to my favourite language is a very clear one
and other people's code and favourite languages are unreadable.
That's pretty much
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Vincent Arnoux
vincent.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sorry I was not clear enough... By ship it with vim, I actually
meant bundle the (Python|Lisp|Perl|Ruby|Whatever) interpreter with vim
I really really really (for i in {1..100}; echo really) wish that
nobody
On Feb 17, 1:23 pm, Matthew Winn v...@mwinn.powernet.co.uk wrote:
That's pretty much the reasoning with every claim for a language's
superiority or inferiority. I find Perl to be one of the easiest
languages to read because it's one of the languages I know best.
It's years since I did any
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Vincent Arnoux
vincent.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 17:26, Tim Chase v...@tim.thechases.com wrote:
Innocent question incoming: Wouldn't it be a good idea to write a
binding of Vimscript in, say, Python or Lua or any other more widely
spread
Lisp is essentially a functional language.
People keep saying that but Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp are really
multi-paradigm languages (Common Lisp more so).
Yeah, I know. But I think the 'essence' of the language is more
functional, really. Even 'functional' is used pretty loosely, though.
I
* 2010-02-17 00:38 (+1100), Ben Schmidt wrote:
And I've never been all that good at counting parentheses!
Neither have I. Lisp IDEs have features which make writing and
navigating through lists and other s-expressions really easy. For
example, Emacs users write and close lists with Alt+( and
* 2010-01-24 21:13 (-0800), Peng Yu wrote:
I know Lisp is very powerful. Is the language in vim as powerful?
No, it's not. It seems that there are still unique features in Lisp
which are not supported in any other language. In this sense Lisp is the
most powerful language available. Lisp is
* 2010-01-27 12:48 (+0800), pansz wrote:
In theory, a turing complete language could do anything.
In practice the effort of doing things is not equivalent, obviously. :-)
The abstractness and features differ very much and not every programmer
is qualified to compare languages' power. Certainly
In theory, a turing complete language could do anything.
Not 'do' anything, but 'compute' anything.
And even then, it's not necessarily particularly useful...if it doesn't
have an interface to get the appropriate 'anything' out...or the
appropriate input in. Almost every language is Turing
* Sean DeNigris truste...@clipperadams.com [100215 16:32]:
The other thing to consider is that Vim can be compiled with support
for other scripting languages e.g. Tcl, Perl, Python, and Ruby. I
write nearly all my scripts in Ruby, with a tiny bit of Vimscript glue
code.
Anyone know if Lua
* 2010-02-16 07:44 (+0200), Teemu Likonen wrote:
Or use recursion:
(defun sum-items-recursive (list)
Sum LIST's items using recursion.
(if (not list)
0
(let ((i (car list)))
(+ i (sum-items-recursive (cdr list))
(sum-items-recursive
Peng Yu 写道:
I have learned neither the language for vim scripting nor the language
for emacs scripting (which is lisp, right?). (I know mit-scheme, but I
have never used emacs) May I ask the following questions?
I know Lisp is very powerful. Is the language in vim as powerful?
For what type of
I have learned neither the language for vim scripting nor the language
for emacs scripting (which is lisp, right?). (I know mit-scheme, but I
have never used emacs) May I ask the following questions?
I know Lisp is very powerful. Is the language in vim as powerful?
For what type of tasks, it is
On 25/01/10 06:13, Peng Yu wrote:
I have learned neither the language for vim scripting nor the language
for emacs scripting (which is lisp, right?). (I know mit-scheme, but I
have never used emacs) May I ask the following questions?
I know Lisp is very powerful. Is the language in vim as
46 matches
Mail list logo
