Anybody willing to decipher Forth program
in [Lisp]
|
From: Nicolas Neuss on 16 Mar 2010 04:25 Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96(a)yahoo.com> writes: > I'm guessing that all of these buggy programs are the result of PRNG > not doing the arithmetic the same. Arithmetic is a lot more fuzzy than > most people imagine --- it varies between systems. For example, in ANS- > Forth there *two* division functions provided (FM/REM for floored > division and SM/REM for symmetric division); apparently the standards > committee couldn't decide which definition of division was more > common, so they provided both. I would recommend testing PRNG by > giving it a key and running it a few times, printing out the generated > key each time. Compare that to PRNG running on a system that does work > (my LC53 was tested on SwiftForth and 32-bit GForth) to see if they > are the same. Sorry, but your Forth program gives the same results as our Common Lisp and Scheme versions, when applied to a file "test.txt" containing abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (terminated by the newline code 13, which was inserted by my Emacs automatically) IMO it is highly improbable that other inputs give differing results, but feel free to prove me wrong. Nicolas
From: Nicolas Neuss on 16 Mar 2010 05:02 Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> writes: > I feel the same, PLT looks very, very interesting. I keep looking at > it from time to time, even though deadlines always prevent me from trying > it out in a "serious" project - but one of these days I will take the > plunge :-) > > Nicolas, if you experiment with PLT Scheme, please post your experience > w.r.t performance of numerical code. I intend to use PLT Scheme for a small functional programming class (Idea: 1,5 hours/week developing nice code with students in a PC pool) in this spring/summer term. [I had thought about using Lispworks followed by Qi/Haskell, but now I have the impression that starting with PLT would probably be nicer.] Maybe I will find time to try out numerical performance on uniform floating point arrays then. At the moment, I don't even observe good performance for Eli's version of LC53 here, so it might be a time-saver to wait a little bit. Nicolas
From: Tim Bradshaw on 16 Mar 2010 05:56 On 2010-03-15 20:59:13 +0000, Hugh Aguilar said: > I don't know what "subjective redundantism" is. I've never heard the > term "plonk" either, but I suppose that it means he's going to go > sulk. That's what he means. In particular he has a nice habit of posting long articles and then announcing he will not read replies to them. Someone not interested in discussing stuff, I guess.
From: Nicolas Neuss on 16 Mar 2010 06:08 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes: > On 2010-03-15 20:59:13 +0000, Hugh Aguilar said: > >> I don't know what "subjective redundantism" is. I've never heard the >> term "plonk" either, but I suppose that it means he's going to go >> sulk. > > That's what he means. In particular he has a nice habit of posting > long articles and then announcing he will not read replies to them. > Someone not interested in discussing stuff, I guess. When he grows older, he will learn that this is not a very clever thing to do, for it allows evil people to make all sorts of sneaky remarks about you without fear that you will answer them :-) Nicolas
From: Tim Bradshaw on 16 Mar 2010 06:43
On 2010-03-16 10:08:57 +0000, Nicolas Neuss said: > When he grows older, he will learn that this is not a very clever thing > to do, for it allows evil people to make all sorts of sneaky remarks > about you without fear that you will answer them :-) It's kind of sad actually. In some earlier article he actually made a point which was worth discussing (the one about macros, packages and modules): there really is an issue there, which I think comes down (from the CL perspective) to packages not being really first-class in CL (packages can only exist in a registry), which means you can't use them in a sufficiently lightweight way. Of course, CL people would argue that this is not a problem in practice, and I think it generally is not: the existing heavyweight namespace system, combined with CL being a Lisp 2, make it far less a problem than it would be in Scheme. I tend to agree with it not being a problem in practice, but I would also quite like to see a fix, and I am wondering if making the package system more lightweight (in particular allowing "uninterned" packages) would work (obviously it is not a theoretically *pretty* fix, but I'm a CL person: I'm used to ugly hacks). --tim |