5 ms·

Basically 'Relational Lisp' won. Just three hours development time.

by lispm 10y ago

marcosdumay 10y ago
And a write-only prototype. I'm sure it could become more readable with some more time invested.
- kazinator 10y ago
  Can you let others know where you were able to download this?
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    What it says about the Lisp implementation: > The documentation size is also quite low, which may partially account for this [low implementation time]. It then got a B in understandability, what is the lowest grade on that dimension.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - lispm 10y ago
      > The documentation size is also quite low You can guess that it is very declarative code, given that they used a Lisp with high-level facilities on top.
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        I'm not going back into the article, but there's a "code reads like documentation" dimension on the evaluation. I don't remember it getting a top score there.
        lispm 10y ago
        But got an A in the table for "Executable Specification", that's what 'declarative programming' actually means. One specifies/declares WHAT to do and the system figures out HOW to do it. Relational Lisp supports this on a 'logical'/'relational' level.
      - kazinator 10y ago
        Anything declarative is pretty much going to be unreadable to the average coder, who equates readability with "able to follow the Fortran-like step-by-step recipe of what the computer is being told to do or calculate". If you've had a 30 year career writing imperative, OOP and functional code, with zero declarative experience (logic programming and that sort of thing), it's not magically going to be readable to you. You have to, ... ahem! ... backtrack a bit, and go down a different learning path. It's somewhat telling that the Lisp shared an A score in the "Executable Specification" area with Haskell and that Proteus. The subjective panel could tell that there is a wonderful executable specification there; they just didn't quite grok its notation or semantics. :) Or maybe they did grok it: they started with an A+, and then docked points down to a B for all the meddlesome parentheses. :)
taeric 10y ago
That is insanely low. Odd to see that it gets basically a passing mention. They acknowledge the absurdly fast development time. Gave the language an "on par" evaluation (though, how they account for a C in prototyping support in what was hands down the winner here is, interesting), and then move on. For those that didn't click through, it was about half the time of the next fastest solution. Edit: I am a really forgetful person. Seems I've made this same observation on this same paper every time it comes up. My apologies if the same people are reading it. :)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Basically 'Relational Lisp' won. Just three hours development time.

by lispm 10y ago

Basically 'Relational Lisp' won. Just three hours development time.

marcosdumay 10y ago

And a write-only prototype. I'm sure it could become more readable with some more time invested.

kazinator 10y ago
Can you let others know where you were able to download this?
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  What it says about the Lisp implementation: > The documentation size is also quite low, which may partially account for this [low implementation time]. It then got a B in understandability, what is the lowest grade on that dimension.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - lispm 10y ago
    > The documentation size is also quite low You can guess that it is very declarative code, given that they used a Lisp with high-level facilities on top.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      I'm not going back into the article, but there's a "code reads like documentation" dimension on the evaluation. I don't remember it getting a top score there.
      - lispm 10y ago
        But got an A in the table for "Executable Specification", that's what 'declarative programming' actually means. One specifies/declares WHAT to do and the system figures out HOW to do it. Relational Lisp supports this on a 'logical'/'relational' level.
    - kazinator 10y ago
      Anything declarative is pretty much going to be unreadable to the average coder, who equates readability with "able to follow the Fortran-like step-by-step recipe of what the computer is being told to do or calculate". If you've had a 30 year career writing imperative, OOP and functional code, with zero declarative experience (logic programming and that sort of thing), it's not magically going to be readable to you. You have to, ... ahem! ... backtrack a bit, and go down a different learning path. It's somewhat telling that the Lisp shared an A score in the "Executable Specification" area with Haskell and that Proteus. The subjective panel could tell that there is a wonderful executable specification there; they just didn't quite grok its notation or semantics. :) Or maybe they did grok it: they started with an A+, and then docked points down to a B for all the meddlesome parentheses. :)

taeric 10y ago

That is insanely low. Odd to see that it gets basically a passing mention. They acknowledge the absurdly fast development time. Gave the language an "on par" evaluation (though, how they account for a C in prototyping support in what was hands down the winner here is, interesting), and then move on. For those that didn't click through, it was about half the time of the next fastest solution. Edit: I am a really forgetful person. Seems I've made this same observation on this same paper every time it comes up. My apologies if the same people are reading it. :)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]