flavio81

11 ms·

61.
by flavio81 6y ago
> Clojure is much closer to math I didn't know that having leaky abstractions on top of the horrible Java standard lib was "being closer to math"
62.
by flavio81 7y ago
>those written in Python just seem much nicer >The AIMA/PAIP code in Common Lisp, for instance, are ugly as hell perhaps it just means you are familiar with python, not lisp. I have 3 years of experience with both and let me tell
63.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Lisp-2 is typically Common Lisp. However Common Lisp is a lisp-n, it has at least 5 namespaces: functions, symbols, keywords, classes, signals, packages...
64.
by flavio81 7y ago
>The problem with "you can roll your own language constructs" is that, er, everybody wants to roll their own language constructs What are methods and classes in a language like Java? Those are "roll your own constructs&quo
65.
by flavio81 7y ago
This. Well said.
66.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I wouldn't say it's a broken idea. It's just an idea that doesn't scale. Working in a dynamic codebase - especially a Lisp one - basically means you have to be familiar with how everything you're using works. Th
67.
by flavio81 7y ago
>and a lack of any compile time checking is what keeps me from even bothering to look at it. Common Lisp more than compensates due to some key features: 1. any bug can be corrected at runtime without having to stop the program 2. the typ
68.
by flavio81 7y ago
Last time I checked, Pascal has generics and exception handling.
69.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Go is what would have happened if Bell Labs wrote Java And Unix is what happened when Bell Labs wrote an operating system -- something that was born outdated from the start. Just like Golang.
70.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Any examples? Common Lisp has been used in scientific computing since decades, so in some sense it's "ready". Also, see CLASP: lisp at the state of the art of computational chemistry.
71.
by flavio81 7y ago
>the main difference between those Lisp based languages and Julia in terms of attracting people is the syntax Yes, and this is practically the only thing that I find wrong with Julia, besides the lack of the interactivity of CL. It'
72.
by flavio81 7y ago
You're doing God's work, Ron.
73.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Leave out one parenthesis and...you miss Venus? You won't, since Lisp editors automatically keep parentheses balanced.
74.
by flavio81 7y ago
>But everyone writes their own DSL on top of the language because the language is simple This is a myth perpetuated by people with zero lisp experience. I've navigated plenty of lisp libraries' codebases and haven't found
75.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Do you use Lisp at your workplace? I do.
76.
by flavio81 7y ago
Already in the early 80s, Lisp was used to program massively parallel supercomputers. Lisp stopped being slow a long, long time ago.
77.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Not to be pedantic, but since Clojure is a hosted JVM language (as one of a few platforms it's hosted on) and has full interoperability with Java, Armed Bear Common Lisp is an ANSI Common Lisp, thus can use all CL libs, runs on the
78.
by flavio81 7y ago
HP's "RPL" language, Reverse Polish Lisp, was basically that.
79.
by flavio81 7y ago
>LISP won't get you anywhere in that sense. Sure you may learn some programming concepts, but the ROI is not worth it. Do you want your kid to learn actual computer science, or do you want him/her to basically be able to create
80.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Pretty sure Logo was originally implemented with a lisp, no? Logo is a bare-bones Lisp disguised as an educational language.
81.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I think there are a lot of great uses of the patterns that come out of s-expressions, for example, but I would still choose Go, Python or JS / TypeScript as my daily driver. There's no God.
82.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I always got a rush from solving problems in LISP but then realized I could much more easily solve the problem in an imperative language I've good news for you: Lisp is an imperative language. http://www.gigamonkeys.com&
83.
by flavio81 7y ago
Anything is faster than CPython. Even PHP!
84.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Go is small and conceptually simple, but its ideas and philosophy are pretty different from most mainstream languages. No, they aren't. They are the same as languages from 40 years ago: We have had channels, coroutines, and good ga
85.
by flavio81 7y ago
>If you value simplicity check out the programming language zig. I value simplicity, that's what i use Brainfuck. Far simpler than Go and Zig. https://fatiherikli.github.io/brainfuck-visualizer/
86.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I really like the exception model of Erlang, Or the exception model of Common Lisp, which is designed for always being able to recover.
87.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Except exceptions are rarely understood and used correctly by most programmers. That's just your opinion.
88.
by flavio81 7y ago
>The web browser has been trending this way ever since JS was added to it. It's an active environment controlled by a dynamic language, It lacks lots of features to get there: - you can't dwell into the browser internals (or mo
89.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I believe that the user experience from this system, and similar, can be equally attained with other languages. Only with Smalltalk. And then, Common Lisp has a more powerful OOP system and usually runs faster.
90.
by flavio81 7y ago
You can pay for LispWorks (inseado of sbcl) and it will run CLIM programs under Windows. Note that sbcl is just another Common Lisp implementation, you could use others as well.

More ›