4 ms·

This is one of my favorite comments of all time, from mahmud. I've had it bookmarked for a while. The context isn't really important, because I think it was sli

This is one of my favorite comments of all time, from mahmud. I've had it bookmarked for a while. The context isn't really important, because I think it was slightly OT comment. It's basically a suggested curriculum for studying Lisp implementation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=835020 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=835020

mahmud 14y ago
I have received more thank yous and mentions for that post than it got upvotes. It got 19 upvotes, but people still mention it. (interesting to note that 2.5 years later, my opinion would be exactly the same, though now I would probably mention a few type-theoretic works; more foundational stuff, less petty bit-fiddling)
- spacemanaki 14y ago
  I've barely scratched the surface of that list, but I'd still be curious what you'd add to it. What type-theoretic work would you add? Pierce's TAPL, or is there something else that's more applicable to type systems in dynamic languages? What more foundational material would you recommend? I would actually be interested in the foundational stuff if it might act as a primer for the heavier papers and books you listed there. I've read SICP and EOPL, but I found the chapter in Lisp in Small Pieces on denotational semantics almost incomprehensible, even though the later chapters on compilation were tremendous fun. I did take a stab at Semantics with Applications but couldn't quite get through it, although I probably didn't go after it with the gusto I should have. Since then I've been getting into some more traditional compiler stuff (Appel's Modern Compiler Impl in ML) but have gotten hung up on trying to really understand parsing, which I have always skipped over like a smug Lisp weenie.
  - mahmud 14y ago
    I am not ignoring this. I'm getting around to answering you. Perhaps out of band ..
    - spacemanaki 14y ago
      Thanks, my email address is in my profile, but there's no rush of course. Your original comment provided quite a lot to indulge in.

mahmud 14y ago

I have received more thank yous and mentions for that post than it got upvotes. It got 19 upvotes, but people still mention it. (interesting to note that 2.5 years later, my opinion would be exactly the same, though now I would probably mention a few type-theoretic works; more foundational stuff, less petty bit-fiddling)

spacemanaki 14y ago
I've barely scratched the surface of that list, but I'd still be curious what you'd add to it. What type-theoretic work would you add? Pierce's TAPL, or is there something else that's more applicable to type systems in dynamic languages? What more foundational material would you recommend? I would actually be interested in the foundational stuff if it might act as a primer for the heavier papers and books you listed there. I've read SICP and EOPL, but I found the chapter in Lisp in Small Pieces on denotational semantics almost incomprehensible, even though the later chapters on compilation were tremendous fun. I did take a stab at Semantics with Applications but couldn't quite get through it, although I probably didn't go after it with the gusto I should have. Since then I've been getting into some more traditional compiler stuff (Appel's Modern Compiler Impl in ML) but have gotten hung up on trying to really understand parsing, which I have always skipped over like a smug Lisp weenie.
- mahmud 14y ago
  I am not ignoring this. I'm getting around to answering you. Perhaps out of band ..
  - spacemanaki 14y ago
    Thanks, my email address is in my profile, but there's no rush of course. Your original comment provided quite a lot to indulge in.