5 ms·

TurboC compilation is 13KB and GCC is over 512KB. Very interesting Lisp-1. I am going to look at the C code. Should be good for embedding as a scripting languag

• ninjin 8y ago
  The “wackiest” Lisp embedding I have seen is of femtolisp [1] into Julia [2] to drive the language parser [3]. In hindsight, this is a fairly sensible design decision, but it did blow my mind when I first spotted it. # julia --lisp ; _ ; |_ _ _ |_ _ | . _ _ ; | (-||||_(_)|__|_)|_) ;-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------- > (apply cons '(1 2)) (1 . 2) [1]: https://github.com/JeffBezanson/femtolisp https://github.com/JeffBezanson/femtolisp [2]: https://julialang.org/ https://julialang.org/ [3]: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/d76a30a7178dd1e9b74430302bf06ec5b28e20c3/src/julia-parser.scm https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/d76a30a7178dd1e9b744...
  • nickpsecurity 8y ago
    A lot of people liked Lisp concepts but couldn't stand the syntax. One thing I keep telling people to try is wrap it in a better syntax hiding the ugly parts. Seeing Lisp in Julia, a language mainstream developers might embrace, brought a big smile to my face. Need more attempts. :) Another language that tried this with a syntax change was Dylan. People interested in that can try OpenDylan.
    • Syzygies 8y ago
      I've been coding for years using a preprocessor that eliminates most parentheses: Indentation implies parentheses. A pipe "|" opens a parenthesis that auto-closes at the end of that line or at the next ")". A dollar "$" opens a parenthesis that auto-closes when the indentation recovers. The result has a lighter, more poetic look than any language I know, and the parentheses that are left actually matter, so I pay attention to them. I've seen other proposals online, but they felt untested to me. Leave out either "|" or "$" and the above system gets clumsy. I check for the equivalent of "$" in other proposals exactly as I check for marrow in a stew recipe: Did they really think this through? One can't change existing habits. An idea that appeals to me: Write a Lisp preprocessor for Rust, and happen to use this syntax.
      • saulrh 8y ago
        Can you post a link to an example? This sounds like something I could use for my all-too-common convenience hacks, but I can't quite envision it just from the description.
      • naasking 8y ago
        Why not o-expressions? http://breuleux.net/blog/oexprs.html http://breuleux.net/blog/oexprs.html
    • drmeister 8y ago
      Lisp without s-expressions is like bathwater without a baby. S-expressions enable homo-iconic macros and make compile-time computing super easy! I spent 35 years programming in C and C-like languages and then developed my own Common Lisp implementation (http://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp.git http://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp.git) - the only Common Lisp that interoperates with C++ and uses llvm as the backend. When I started with lisp I wrestled with the syntax and sweet-expressions and just decided to let it go. Now I've found language love all over again! In a world that runs on Javascript, nobody should be able to complain about a few measly parentheses. Obligatory relevant XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/297/ https://xkcd.com/297/
      • zem 8y ago
        you get all the good properties of lisp with a syntax that leaves some parentheses implicit but unambiguous (meaning that a preprocessor can add them back as the first step).
• UncleEntity 8y ago
  > ...and GCC is over 512KB. Just using make out of the box shows 44k so not sure where the 512k is coming from? Using my "standard" little gcc flags: -Os -s -Wall -Wl,-z,norelro it comes out to 19k on gcc 8.2.1 on x86-64.
  • nils-m-holm 8y ago
    Try -static, because that is what Turbo C and SubC do!