KazimirMajorinc

7 ms·

1.
by KazimirMajorinc 14y ago
Apparently, it is some kind of sexual fetish. I flagged many of these videos as Violent and repulsive content > animal abuse, but without any reaction from Youtube. Some (but very few) of these videos are empty snail shells or imitation
2.
Youtube published nearly 1000 videos of people killing snails for fun(youtube.com)
6 points by KazimirMajorinc 14y ago|3 comments
3.
Nokolisp (1976-)(koti.welho.com)
1 points by KazimirMajorinc 15y ago|0 comments
4.
by KazimirMajorinc 16y ago
Newlisp is my favorite Lisp dialect. Before that I used Scheme and before that, CL. I prefer Newlisp because combination of dynamic scope and fexprs is conceptually simpler and more expressive than combination of lexical scope and macros. I
5.
C# vs C++: more jobs and better weekends?(kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com)
4 points by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago|0 comments
6.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
You can check my blog. There is a lot of code=data manipulation there. For example, this one: http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as-sexpr... This post describes implementation of hygienic (even recursive hygienic) fexprs
7.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
Yes, it's fun. PLT Scheme editor supports similar "block style" parentheses highlighting, and it is useful for reading large data sets or machine generated code. http://plt-scheme.org/screenshots/french-profiler.jpg
8.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
Very interesting work.
9.
Global warming? Check for yourself(unbalanced-parentheses.nfshost.com)
107 points by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago|54 comments
10.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
Good luck, Bard.
11.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
I think Wand's result is straw man if used against fexprs - and Wand really didn't used it that way. Essentially, he says, with fexprs, there is no source => source transformation that can work in all contexts. Ok - but I am not interes
12.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
If you use eval in your program, the program will macroexpand each time it evaluates code containing macros. As even standard operators like setf are macros in CL, it will practically macroexpand each time it uses eval. So, macros really sl
13.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
* Fexprs are easier to write and more expressive than macros. They can be mapped, applied, wrapped around other functions, fexprs and built in primitives, in the case of Newlisp, even mutated during runtime. Fexprs are lot of fun. And the p
14.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
Closures are the functions with "private" data preserving values between two calls of the same function. It is not impossible with dynamic scope - but problem is again accidental name clash. As it is the same problem as with macros - I gues
15.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
There are few ways out of that: 1. use of "contexts" i.e. Newlisp namespaces 2. use of same approach as in CL or Scheme macros. In CL it is automatic generation of unusual names, gensyms, in Scheme it is even more automatic "hygiene". Both
16.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
This problem exists, but it is equivalent to problems Common Lisp programmer has to face if he writes macros, and solutions are similar. In CL it is solved with gensyms, and Scheme hygienic macros automatised that. Similar approaches are po
17.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
In my opinion, dynamic scope is adequate solution for Lisp approach, i.e. expressive power on the first place. Newlisp is very simple and expressive dialect, and it is pleasure using it. Dynamic scope allow some things statical scope doesn'
18.
by KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
It is true, Lisp means any Lisp, and it is specifically noted on the advertised poll that all Lisp dialects are included. It is also specifically noted that Lisp programmers who use Lisp part time have right to write why they do not use Lis