Prev: MIPS Recursion Help
Next: * Program ALPHATEST (FORTRAN 77)
From: Jon Harrop on 27 Sep 2009 16:27
bartc wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 2:14�pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> John Slimick wrote:
>>>> I never saw LISP as a serious production language,
>>>
>>> AutoCAD has a considerable chunk of it written in lisp (well, a lisp
>>> dialect) and also relies on it for scripting.
>>>
>>> That is as serious as any production language can get.
>>
>> Why the change to Visual Basic then? Is it because
>> lisp is too hard for your everyday CAD person
>> to understand?
>
> I'd also thought that AutoLisp had long since been superceded, but
> apparently it's still going strong.

Autodesk (the creators of AutoCAD and AutoLisp) are advocating the use of
F#:

"I've found a lot of value in static typing over the years..." -
http://through-the-interface.typepad.com/through_the_interface/f/

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u
From: Mensanator on 27 Sep 2009 16:34
On Sep 27, 3:27 pm, Jon Harrop <j...(a)ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> bartc wrote:
> > Mensanator wrote:
> >> On Sep 26, 2:14 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> John Slimick wrote:
> >>>> I never saw LISP as a serious production language,
>
> >>> AutoCAD has a considerable chunk of it written in lisp (well, a lisp
> >>> dialect) and also relies on it for scripting.
>
> >>> That is as serious as any production language can get.
>
> >> Why the change to Visual Basic then? Is it because
> >> lisp is too hard for your everyday CAD person
> >> to understand?
>
> > I'd also thought that AutoLisp had long since been superceded, but
> > apparently it's still going strong.
>
> Autodesk (the creators of AutoCAD and AutoLisp) are advocating the use of
> F#:

Why would anyone in their right mind advocate F#?

Isn't having two different rational types the stupidest
feature ever offered by a language? Compounded by the fact
that NO conversion functions were implemented between the
two types?

Would you say lisp is a little bit smarter than that?

>
> "I’ve found a lot of value in static typing over the years..." -http://through-the-interface.typepad.com/through_the_interface/f/
>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Jon Harrop on 30 Sep 2009 18:01
Mensanator wrote:
> On Sep 27, 3:27 pm, Jon Harrop <j...(a)ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> Autodesk (the creators of AutoCAD and AutoLisp) are advocating the use of
>> F#:
>
> Why would anyone in their right mind advocate F#?

F# is easy to learn, fast to run, easy to parallelize, interactive,
interoperable with lots of other software thanks to .NET and has a truck
load of fantastic libraries (like WPF, XNA, LINQ and the TPL). F# also has
a thriving commercial market.

> Isn't having two different rational types the stupidest
> feature ever offered by a language? Compounded by the fact
> that NO conversion functions were implemented between the
> two types?

Arbitrary-precision rationals are represented by the
Microsoft.FSharp.Math.BigNum type from the F# Power Pack. What is the other
type are you referring to?

> Would you say lisp is a little bit smarter than that?

Lisp lacks static typing, is slow to run, impossible to parallelize (due to
the lack of any Lisp implementations with concurrent garbage collectors,
even among commercial offerings), comparatively uninteroperable and has no
libraries comparable to WPF, XNA, LINQ and the TPL. Lisp does not have a
viable commercial market.

Suffice to say, F# is a much better place to be right now:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=common+lisp%2Cf%23

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u
From: Dave Searles on 1 Oct 2009 14:49
Jon Harrop wrote:
> Lisp lacks static typing, is slow to run, impossible to parallelize (due to
> the lack of any Lisp implementations with concurrent garbage collectors,
> even among commercial offerings), comparatively uninteroperable and has no
> libraries comparable to WPF, XNA, LINQ and the TPL.

Bullshit. One Lisp, Clojure, has a concurrent GC, specific support for
parallelism, and is interoperable with the huge existing body of Java
libraries and code. Furthermore, a version has been made for the .NET
runtime which has the same concurrency support (modulo concurrent GC in
the .NET runtime) and access to the same libraries your precious F# has
access to.
From: Dave Searles on 1 Oct 2009 14:50
Mensanator wrote:
> On Sep 30, 5:01 pm, Jon Harrop <j...(a)ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 3:27 pm, Jon Harrop <j...(a)ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>>>> Autodesk (the creators of AutoCAD and AutoLisp) are advocating the use of
>>>> F#:
>>> Why would anyone in their right mind advocate F#?
>> F# is easy to learn, fast to run, easy to parallelize, interactive,
>> interoperable with lots of other software thanks to .NET and has a truck
>> load of fantastic libraries (like WPF, XNA, LINQ and the TPL). F# also has
>> a thriving commercial market.
>>
>>> Isn't having two different rational types the stupidest
>>> feature ever offered by a language? Compounded by the fact
>>> that NO conversion functions were implemented between the
>>> two types?
>> Arbitrary-precision rationals are represented by the
>> Microsoft.FSharp.Math.BigNum type from the F# Power Pack. What is the other
>> type are you referring to?
>
> <quote C:\F#/fsharp-1.1.13.8/FSharp-1.1.13.8/manual/fslib/
> Microsoft.FSharp.Math.html>
> Type Definitions Type Description
> type BigInt The type of arbitrary-sized integers
> type BigNum The type of arbitrary-sized rational numbers, with
> more
> efficient representations for integers
> type BigRational The type of arbitrary-sized rational numbers
> type complex The type of complex numbers Note: an abbreviation for
> Complex
> type Complex The type of complex numbers stored as pairs of 64-bit
> floating
> point numbers in rectangular coordinates
> type IFloating
> type IFractional
> type IIEEE
> type IIntegral
> type INumeric
> type matrix The type of floating point matrices Note: an
> abbreviation for
> Matrix<float>
> type Matrix The type of matrices. The arithmetic operations on
> the element type
> are determined by inspection on the element type
> itself
> type rowvec The type of floating point row vectors Note: an
> abbreviation for
> RowVector<float>
> type RowVector The type of row vectors. This type is included mostly
> only for
> completeness and is used relatively rarely.
> type vector The type of floating point column vectors Note: an
> abbreviation
> for Vector<float>
> type Vector The type of column vectors. The arithmetic operations
> on the element
> type are determined by inspection on the element type
> itself
> </quote>
>
> I see two here.

IFractional and BigRational? One's an interface and the other's the
implementation.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: MIPS Recursion Help
Next: * Program ALPHATEST (FORTRAN 77)