porting a Forth program
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Can this be "refactored"? A simple 'wrapper function' to display MySQL data sets in tabular form
Next: The correct choice for implementation (was: A simple web client library)
From: Pascal Costanza on 13 Mar 2010 16:30 On 13/03/2010 21:37, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Mar 13, 4:16 am, Nicolas Neuss<lastn...(a)kit.edu> wrote: >> Eli Barzilay<e...(a)barzilay.org> writes: >>>> I'm leaning toward learning PLT Scheme and using it for my slide-rule >>>> program. Afterward I will graduate to CCL or some other CL system. I >>>> will be able to make a more informed decision by then, hopefully. >> >>> (I'd s/graduate/downgrade/ here.) >> >> Let agree on something like "change environments":-) >> >> Nicolas > > I didn't mean to be disparaging to PLT Scheme in my use of the word > "graduate." I am leaning toward starting with PLT Scheme for my slide- > rule. Who knows, maybe I will like PLT Scheme so much that I won't > want to learn Common Lisp at all. Generally speaking, most programmers > prefer whatever language they learned first, so that will likely > happen to me too. That is largely why I started this thread --- to get > advice on which language to start out on. It is a very good idea to learn about both languages. They both occupy - in some respects very - different points in the design space of Lisp dialects, and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. You may prefer one over the other, but it may not be the first one you happen to learn. It's also a good idea to be aware what drives your preferences. Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Nicolas Neuss on 13 Mar 2010 16:37 Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96(a)yahoo.com> writes: > [...] I didn't mean to be disparaging to PLT Scheme in my use of the > word "graduate." I am leaning toward starting with PLT Scheme for my > slide- rule. Who knows, maybe I will like PLT Scheme so much that I > won't want to learn Common Lisp at all. Generally speaking, most > programmers prefer whatever language they learned first, so that will > likely happen to me too. That is largely why I started this thread --- > to get advice on which language to start out on. I myself have started with Scheme (however: Guile and not PLT), and only after about five years of Scheme I have switched to Common Lisp which is my favorite language since about 10 years. The main advantages of Common Lisp compared with PLT Scheme is for me the high performance also of low-level code (as e.g. your LC53, but also floating-point intensive calculations), and a high stability of the language. Nicolas
From: Eli Barzilay on 13 Mar 2010 17:36 Nicolas Neuss <lastname(a)kit.edu> writes: > Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> [...] I didn't mean to be disparaging to PLT Scheme in my use of the >> word "graduate." I am leaning toward starting with PLT Scheme for my >> slide- rule. Who knows, maybe I will like PLT Scheme so much that I >> won't want to learn Common Lisp at all. Generally speaking, most >> programmers prefer whatever language they learned first, so that will >> likely happen to me too. That is largely why I started this thread --- >> to get advice on which language to start out on. > > I myself have started with Scheme (however: Guile and not PLT), and > only after about five years of Scheme I have switched to Common Lisp > which is my favorite language since about 10 years. The main > advantages of Common Lisp compared with PLT Scheme is for me the > high performance also of low-level code (as e.g. your LC53, but also > floating-point intensive calculations), Um, as my quick translation of the code shows, the speed is roughly on the same neighborhood. And that's for code where speed is important: which is untrue for most code. > and a high stability of the language. Yes, it's hard to beat CL's stability -- that can be taken as either an advantage (code that I wrote 16 years ago still runs) or a disadvantage (the language didn't change in the last 16 years, the world did). -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
From: joswig on 13 Mar 2010 17:48 On 13 Mrz., 23:36, Eli Barzilay <e...(a)barzilay.org> wrote: > Nicolas Neuss <lastn...(a)kit.edu> writes: > > Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > >> [...] I didn't mean to be disparaging to PLT Scheme in my use of the > >> word "graduate." I am leaning toward starting with PLT Scheme for my > >> slide- rule. Who knows, maybe I will like PLT Scheme so much that I > >> won't want to learn Common Lisp at all. Generally speaking, most > >> programmers prefer whatever language they learned first, so that will > >> likely happen to me too. That is largely why I started this thread --- > >> to get advice on which language to start out on. > > > I myself have started with Scheme (however: Guile and not PLT), and > > only after about five years of Scheme I have switched to Common Lisp > > which is my favorite language since about 10 years. The main > > advantages of Common Lisp compared with PLT Scheme is for me the > > high performance also of low-level code (as e.g. your LC53, but also > > floating-point intensive calculations), > > Um, as my quick translation of the code shows, the speed is roughly on > the same neighborhood. And that's for code where speed is important: > which is untrue for most code. > > > and a high stability of the language. > > Yes, it's hard to beat CL's stability -- that can be taken as either > an advantage (code that I wrote 16 years ago still runs) or a > disadvantage (the language didn't change in the last 16 years, the > world did). Much of the language can be changed by the users. No need to wait for new syntax. The implementations also did change. It just happened on top of a stable base. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
From: Eli Barzilay on 13 Mar 2010 18:12
"joswig(a)corporate-world.lisp.de" <joswig(a)lisp.de> writes: > On 13 Mrz., 23:36, Eli Barzilay <e...(a)barzilay.org> wrote: >> >> Yes, it's hard to beat CL's stability -- that can be taken as either >> an advantage (code that I wrote 16 years ago still runs) or a >> disadvantage (the language didn't change in the last 16 years, the >> world did). > > Much of the language can be changed by the users. No need > to wait for new syntax. [...] That applies to any language in the extended Lisp family. Still, many schemers got fed up with R5RS being a static point that is out of sync with what people actually need. (And my (very superficial) impression is that there's a good number of CLers that are unhappy with how static CL is.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! |