4 ms·

> FullForm Plus[a, b] How can I make this any more clear? You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it w

> FullForm Plus[a, b] How can I make this any more clear? You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b > I'd expect that they can. Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled.

kazinator 3y ago
If we count everyone's one-weekend project that evaluates (+ 1 2) into 3, then there are probably thousands of Lisps that cannot be compiled. So what?
- lispm 3y ago
  Then the person should spend another weekend and implement a compiler for it.
lispm 3y ago
> You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b Sure, but it is not Mathematica's InputForm: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html The majority of code is written not in FullForm. In Lisp 100% of the code is written in s-expressions. > Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled. Typical Lisp and Lisp dialects all can be compiled: Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Scheme, Racket, ... Which Lisps can not be compiled?
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  >Racket Do you really know what you're talking about here? https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html >The raco make command accept filenames for Racket modules to be compiled to bytecode format. That's not a compiler... I don't claim to be an expert on lisp, so further googling I find https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-without-native-backends/950/2 https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-with... which has some discussion about this and that native backend. Suffice it to say I am not any more confident that being compilable is somehow intrinsic to lisp.
  - lispm 3y ago
    From the Racket documentation: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html "18.7.1.2 CS Compilation Modes The CS implementation of Racket supports several compilation modes: machine code, machine-independent, interpreted, and JIT. Machine code is the primary mode, and the machine-independent mode is the same as for BC." CS is the new implementation of Racket on top of the Chez Scheme runtime. Chez Scheme is known for its excellent machine code compiler. "Machine code is the primary mode" > Do you really know what you're talking about here? Read above.
kazinator 3y ago
If you have time to research Lisp implementations until you gather ten that don't have compilers, you might want to take a few seconds to visit https://clisp.cons.org https://clisp.cons.org to find out what Clisp means.

kazinator 3y ago

If we count everyone's one-weekend project that evaluates (+ 1 2) into 3, then there are probably thousands of Lisps that cannot be compiled. So what?

lispm 3y ago
Then the person should spend another weekend and implement a compiler for it.

lispm 3y ago

> You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b Sure, but it is not Mathematica's InputForm: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html The majority of code is written not in FullForm. In Lisp 100% of the code is written in s-expressions. > Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled. Typical Lisp and Lisp dialects all can be compiled: Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Scheme, Racket, ... Which Lisps can not be compiled?

mathisfun123 3y ago
>Racket Do you really know what you're talking about here? https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html >The raco make command accept filenames for Racket modules to be compiled to bytecode format. That's not a compiler... I don't claim to be an expert on lisp, so further googling I find https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-without-native-backends/950/2 https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-with... which has some discussion about this and that native backend. Suffice it to say I am not any more confident that being compilable is somehow intrinsic to lisp.
- lispm 3y ago
  From the Racket documentation: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html "18.7.1.2 CS Compilation Modes The CS implementation of Racket supports several compilation modes: machine code, machine-independent, interpreted, and JIT. Machine code is the primary mode, and the machine-independent mode is the same as for BC." CS is the new implementation of Racket on top of the Chez Scheme runtime. Chez Scheme is known for its excellent machine code compiler. "Machine code is the primary mode" > Do you really know what you're talking about here? Read above.

kazinator 3y ago

If you have time to research Lisp implementations until you gather ten that don't have compilers, you might want to take a few seconds to visit https://clisp.cons.org https://clisp.cons.org to find out what Clisp means.