flavio81

40 ms·

361.
by flavio81 9y ago
This is very interesting. I saw the schematics for the AVM some years ago and the main IC (and I think only IC) was an Atari custom chip. Wonder what was inside the chip!
362.
by flavio81 9y ago
> Dozens of hours of entertainment guaranteed I endorse that guarantee. This is one of the best sites ever.
363.
by flavio81 9y ago
tl;dr: it's a transpiler, not a compiler. The programning "language" only supports four operations: Add, substract, multiply, and divide. On integers only. No control flow operators. No parentheses to group expressions. No po
364.
by flavio81 9y ago
> If you took LOGO over the age of say 12, it probably seemed childish and useless. Yes. However, at a fundamental level, LOGO is actually an advanced programming language.
365.
by flavio81 9y ago
> But instead most schools only use Lisp as a vehicle for teaching the basics of recursion and functional programming, rather than as an immediately useful tool, so most students go away This was my experience too. In university, Lisp s
366.
by flavio81 9y ago
We do have it, it is called "elt" in Lisp.
367.
by flavio81 9y ago
> When Rich Hickey invented Clojure, he kept the gems of the LISP tradition, but jettison much of the muck. That's the myth that Hickey loves to pass around, but is a totally baseless claim. > This is why Clojure has first inste
368.
by flavio81 9y ago
>They aren't human-first languages. S-expressions are easy for a computer, they are hard for a human. I've used Python, C, C++, C#, Java and Pascal extensively. I can safely say Common Lisp allows you to write the most readable
369.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Lisps are arbitrarily powerful by the means of macros. This is my experiencie too. S-expressions + macros is an amazingly powerful combination.
370.
by flavio81 9y ago
How to write prolifically and expert-like? Why, by using the Postmodernism generator, of course! http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/ Hint: Hit refresh to generate a new essay.
371.
by flavio81 9y ago
I found it a well explained article. The author throws good, pointed references to Smalltalk, Lisp, Python and C in the comparison, and indeed there are areas in which Ruby seems to be a bit awkward. However i'd say there is little cri
372.
by flavio81 9y ago
Common Lisp. OOP with plenty of features (and more), compiles to native code on many platforms.
373.
by flavio81 9y ago
>*"JavaScript bloat is more real today than it ever was. Sites continuously get bigger as more (often redundant) libraries are thrown to solve new problems." Very true, pointed criticism, but i'm afraid part of the answer
374.
by flavio81 9y ago
> I don't know what it is about Java that makes people write code and name things like this. The cause is lack of abstraction and a very limited(rigid, opposite of "flexible") object system. The programmer must use some s
375.
by flavio81 9y ago
+1 SQLAlechemy is an excellent library. Zzzeek, many kind thanks for such a good ORM.
376.
by flavio81 9y ago
Yes, that was a very silly thing to say, but the rest of the article has interesting criticism.
377.
by flavio81 9y ago
> Not every one is great Somebody should create a project to boil down those 600,000 to about 1000 really good packages and make sure those 1000 doesn't have dependencies with the othee 559,000.
378.
by flavio81 9y ago
> Have you seen the Common Lisp specification? Yes, it is huge and gigantic, but worth it's weight in gold. The stuff "just works" and has almost no limits. I'd say that spec is a masterpiece.
379.
by flavio81 9y ago
... unless the dynamically typed language also allows type declarations, intended mainly for enhancing speed.
380.
by flavio81 9y ago
> I'm not sure exactly why people bring up performance when tail call elimination is mentioned. Yes, you are correct, however i was mentioning TCO and performance as separate topics. This nonwithstanding, consider that TCO allows w
381.
by flavio81 9y ago
Very nice. I just wished Python would have a proper lambda operator. As far as i know they still have that "one-line" lambda keyword which is very restrictive for functional programming.
382.
by flavio81 9y ago
This series make use of (or link to) this very interesting python "tutor" i found really nice: http://www.pythontutor.com/visualize.html#mode=display Separate topic: Comment of the first part of the series: > A
383.
by flavio81 9y ago
> The friction of entering and it demanding so much information is a killer for me. Quite the opposite, i find it a plus. I want to be found by people who need exactly my skills and profile.
384.
by flavio81 9y ago
Thanks for helping create this. It made my day, and I'm already thinking over and over on how to fill my application form in the best way possible. Go YC!
385.
by flavio81 9y ago
I work at a name brand company (a really well known brand, honestly, over 200,000 employees), and I dream of switching to an exciting startup.
386.
by flavio81 9y ago
I'd prefer C-INTERCAL or LOLCODE
387.
by flavio81 9y ago
TL;DR: Since Go does not have any decent error handling system, regular code will tend to have convoluted if-then-else blocks, thus the author proposes simple, effective ways to simplify them, so you can enjoy Go and keep handling exception
388.
by flavio81 9y ago
Java has a JIT that will compile to machine language during run time.
389.
by flavio81 9y ago
> Before I get into the section for Go, it’s appropriate for me to disclose that I am a Go fanboy Yes, it shows...
390.
by flavio81 9y ago
This is great stuff! Thanks for this project!

More ›