flavio81

33 ms·

301.
by flavio81 9y ago
Memory tagging in hardware? Yay, they're implementing 1970s Lisp Machines again!
302.
by flavio81 9y ago
I do like Python, a lot, but you asked for it... the list is long! - true, effortless metaprogramming - speed close to C by use of type declarations and fixed arrays; this means up to 100x faster than CPython. No, PyPy, Jython and Cython d
303.
by flavio81 9y ago
>book Practical Common Lisp It is a wonderful book and Common Lisp is powerful to the max, but note that CL is a multi-paradigm language and examples won't necessarily be in the "functional" style. Quite the opposite, Comm
304.
by flavio81 9y ago
I have read many "criticism of Go" articles and this one is one of the most direct-to-the point. TL;DR: topics covered: 1. capitalization rules create inconsistent behavior 2. Structs do not explicitly declare which interfaces the
305.
by flavio81 9y ago
>advantages of garbage collection, as if they wanted it they wouldn't be using C/C++. There are garbage collection libs for C++ and they are used by C++ programmers whenever necessary.
306.
by flavio81 9y ago
>and by departing from a language of values and function composition (eg by introducing macros) You are assuming that a DSL is done by using macros; which is incorrect; in Lisp you can easily create your own DSL using plain functions as
307.
by flavio81 9y ago
>a bad dsl in fact becomes a barrier to good abstraction. Consider any DSL for html generation that predates React.js; react isn’t even a DSL at all, react is values and functions React isn't a DSL; React includes a DSL for html g
308.
by flavio81 9y ago
>do any of the lisps have a package system like npm with tiny, nano libraries? In the Common Lisp world there is Quicklisp which works perfectly, however "nano libraries" a la NPM are often shunned in that community (as well
309.
by flavio81 9y ago
>this is just the tip of the iceberg. However the full iceberg is still only found on the Lisp languages. Some features are found in other languages, but the combination of metaprogramming with homoiconicity is one of the key elements, a
310.
by flavio81 9y ago
>I can imagine that this was easier to deal with for a large team than the original implementation in Lisp You can bet this was simply due to lack of Lisp developers at Yahoo. And I can bet that the Lisp code was easier to read. I once d
311.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Some people say Python is a good enough Lisp. After a full year writing Python professionally, and then Common Lisp, i can confidently say this is not true.
312.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Clojure is a Lisp Almost. It deviates a lot from all the other Lisps, in particular the two main branches: Common Lisp and Scheme. However it is still a Lisp family language, and thus with its advantages.
313.
by flavio81 9y ago
> So, if one isn't careful, it's possible to write a very clean, very nice Lisp DSL which is totally incomprehensible to anybody but the author, and thus hell to maintain over time. This is a myth. DSLs in Lisp are almost alwa
314.
by flavio81 9y ago
No.
315.
by flavio81 9y ago
>but I haven't found a better one search again
316.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Go is like the Six Million Dollar Man language, compared to C. It's everything C can do No, it is not. Put macros back in, pointers and memory without GC before claiming Go can do the same things C does.
317.
by flavio81 9y ago
>F# has sum types, and replaces null with an option type - great ideas, but you can approximate these ideas in any language if you need to. Yes, i will approximate a Formula 1 car by connecting two bicycles side to side and fitting a law
318.
by flavio81 9y ago
>>use the special functions for handling hygienic macros? And each flavor of Lisp has its own way of doing hygienic macros. There are two main flavors of Lisp: Common Lisp and Scheme; Scheme already has hygienic macros as default; and
319.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Also, metaprogramming is no longer exclusive to Lisp, other languages are adding advanced features all the time, so there's fewer reasons to move to Lisp. You'll see many people in such languages say things as "please d
320.
by flavio81 9y ago
>New programmers and developers look at that and compare it to something like Go, Python, or JavaScript, and all those look easier to write (although deceptively complex in places) and are 1000x easier to read. Are you sure? Reading a
321.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Refactoring lisp gets harder the more complex the program gets. Approachs that are clever and reasonable for a 1000 line program can become hell in a 100,000 line program. Can you substantiate this claim? One of the reasons Lisp was u
322.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Does anyone have some examples of great products that have been built largely by leveraging lisp macros? Common Lisp itself. The Common Lisp language is not only made up by data types, functions and control constructs: Many of the typic
323.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Anyways, I kept reading places that lisp macros and c macros were completely distinct, which seems untrue after a couple years of trying clojure. I haven't used Clojure macros but as a programmer that uses both C and Common Lisp, I
324.
by flavio81 9y ago
>It is very possible and practical to parse conventional languages down to an AST tree, work on the tree, and run that code. Yes, of course. >Sometimes I wonder if the LISP cult is just trying to pretend Noam Chomsky was never born. L
325.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Lisp didn't win because it used to cost money to get a good implementation, and there was no company throwing tons of marketing at it. This was one of the reasons. In the late 70s, cheap computers (IMSAI, Altair) were almost unable
326.
by flavio81 9y ago
>There is a reason lisp didn't win. We put up with it (I use emacs, so I have to write it at times) but in general it's harder to reason about transformable lists of code than it is about plain old objects and their methods. So
327.
by flavio81 9y ago
>I agree, OO is ultimately good enough. And Common Lisp has arguably the most flexible and powerful OOP system around, CLOS. Why don't write OOP in Lisp? It is done successfully by lispers around the world.
328.
by flavio81 9y ago
>I'm starting to think that the reason Lisp has never taken off outside a minority of users Believe me, there are many reasons why Lisp hasn't gained more traction, and little of this has anything to do with the syntax or with
329.
by flavio81 9y ago
>The point is that code is data, enough said. You manipulate your functions the same way you manipulate lists, because they are the same thing. I'd just like to interject for a moment. To add on to what you have said: More precisely
330.
by flavio81 9y ago
>that can express higher level concepts with lesser boilerplate, The whole premise around Lisp is precisely to express higher level concepts with lesser boilerplate. This is achieved through a syntax that is really close to the AST, and

More ›