Anybody willing to decipher Forth program
in [Lisp]
|
From: Eli Barzilay on 16 Mar 2010 16:34 Nicolas Neuss <lastname(a)kit.edu> writes: > 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 :-) I already grew *that* old, and now I'm at the stage where I really don't mind the sneaky remarks if the reward is more hacking time. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
From: Eli Barzilay on 16 Mar 2010 16:34 Nicolas Neuss <lastname(a)kit.edu> writes: > Eli Barzilay <eli(a)barzilay.org> writes: > >> [a very good technical post] > > and ends with > >> [In any case, this opst probably has an even higher number of flame >> hooks, so I'll plonk this thread too.] > > Why are you so defensive? Because it's exactly this kind of post that will undoubtedly draw lots of comments about how you can or couldn't do this or that in CL, and soon enough the signal gets lost in all the noise it leads to and with it my hacking time gets lost with it -- so I'd rather keep the signal high on my end. > IMO, these lines are the only flame-bait in your post because you > assume that your audience is not capable of discussing technical > points. Sorry, no baiting intended. (And this crowd is definitely capable of technical discussions, perhaps even too capable.) > I have taken again a look at the PLT homepage, and liked very much what > I have seen. I am a little in doubt, if PLT can with good conscience be > called "Scheme" any more - it seems to be more aimed at becoming the > ultimate Borg of programming languages. Yes, that's very true. > Anyway, I wouldn't mind having a PLT module "common-lisp" > available:-) There's Swindle, which provides most of CLOS in a little more scheme-ly way, and there's the Modular ACL2 work which is an attempt to combine CL's double namespace with PLT's module (and hygienic macros). But neither of these is really a CL language... -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
From: Eli Barzilay on 16 Mar 2010 16:34 Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96(a)yahoo.com> writes: > On the subject of practicality, would anybody here consider PLT > Scheme to be a bad choice for my slide-rule program? I looked over > the online documentation (including Eli's website), The documentation (docs.plt-scheme.org) should be good, don't try to look for it on my own pages, since it's not there... > 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. Well, my intention was to do some actual hacking, but instead I ended up pumping water out of my basement that decided to experience being a swimming pool. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
From: Hugh Aguilar on 16 Mar 2010 17:59 On Mar 16, 2:25 am, Nicolas Neuss <lastn...(a)kit.edu> wrote: > 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. I have given the subject some thought and I realize that goobledygook is the expected result with short files like this. It is possible for LC53 to find a completely spurious key value that generates a 0 in the high bit for a few iterations (27 with your file), but which is generating garbage in the lower 7 bits of each byte. I was also wrong when I said that TEST-HOW-FAR would tell you what the minimum length of the text file has to be. This would only be true if LC53 were using the entire 8 bits of each byte as known plaintext. Because we are only using 1 bit of each byte as known plaintext, the file has to be much longer. I don't know how long, but maybe a few hundred characters. Test your Lisp programs with long text files to make sure they are working. Honestly, I hadn't given any thought to the subject of tiny little text files, but had just assumed that there would be enough data available. That was an oversight on my part. LC53 is just a toy program; nobody who knows anything about encryption would use the linear-congruential system. I did think of one use for LC53 though. This would be a text-editor that is designed specifically for women to write their diaries, and in which they use LC53 encryption to prevent their boyfriends from reading the text. Assuming that no women are computer programmers (true as far as I know), they will never find out how easy it is to crack the LC53. I may write this text editor using PLT Scheme, as PLT Scheme is supposedly good for writing GUI programs. I can provide a pink screen with lots of hearts and flowers and so forth to induce women to use it. That should work! Considering how long-winded most women are in regard to describing their feelings, we can be pretty sure that the problem described above regarding short files will never occur in practice. :-)
From: Hugh Aguilar on 16 Mar 2010 18:33
On Mar 15, 7:51 pm, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-15 16:59:13 -0400, Hugh Aguilar said: > > > I don't know what "subjective redundantism" is. > > Each correspondent repeating his own personal, otherwise unsuppored > opinion. Not a term in common use. That is what I meant about people who go around and around and then leave by the same door as in they came. I'm guilty of that myself, at least in regard to Forth, as I find it extremely difficult to believe that anybody knows more than I do. I won't be guilty of that on this forum though, as I don't have any personal opinions to defend --- I readily admit that I don't know anything about the subject. > > I've never heard the > > term "plonk" either > > In common use: to killfile a thread or poster - i.e., to add that > thread or poster to a list that one's newsreading software will not > display. I can relate. Over on comp.lang.forth, a guy named John Passaniti offered the opinion that my symtab program "sucks" --- and he earned a permanent place on my twit list for that. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/c37b473ec4da66f1# Symtab is in the novice Forth package if anybody is interested. Porting symtab will most likely be my first effort at Lisp programming --- you guys have already ported LC53 (thanks again). Over on c.l.f., almost nobody posts any code, but everybody is highly enthusiastic about denouncing code written by other people. I got sick of it. That is largely why I'm switching to Lisp now. I browsed through c.l.l. and I found a lot more focus on actual code. To me, computer programming is all about writing programs. I don't really understand the concept of talking about programming, without actually doing any programming. What would be the point? > P.S. as regards your more important question, PLT scheme has awlays > been an excellent choice for cross-platform lisp-family gui > development, especially if one wants high quality, extensive > documentation. Well, for better or worse, I am going to use PLT Scheme for my slide- rule program, as this seems to be the best choice for GUI software. This switch from CL just goes to prove that I can change my mind! As soon as I have some code written I will show it to you guys --- you can give me positive criticism to help me learn. So long as you don't tell me that my code "sucks," I will stay mellow! :-) |