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 18:12 On 13/03/2010 23:36, Eli Barzilay wrote: > 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). ....we're still waiting for the world to catch up, including Scheme... :-P Pascal P.S.: This is a joke, not at all serious. -- 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: Tamas K Papp on 14 Mar 2010 03:20 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:12:11 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: > "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.) I don't know how you got that impression. Most of the complaints I have seen about the standard recently were from people who wanted some library functionality to be added to/changed in the standard, not about addressing something more fundamental in the design of CL. In reaction to these complaints, most people pointed out that you can just write the function the way you like it and use it from now on. I thought that a Schemer would sympathize with that approach :-) Tamas
From: Eli Barzilay on 14 Mar 2010 06:51
Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:12:11 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: >> >> 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.) > > I don't know how you got that impression. Most of the complaints I > have seen about the standard recently were from people who wanted > some library functionality to be added to/changed in the standard, > not about addressing something more fundamental in the design of CL. > > In reaction to these complaints, most people pointed out that you > can just write the function the way you like it and use it from now > on. I thought that a Schemer would sympathize with that approach > :-) Good thing I'm not a schemer. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! |