junke

42 ms·

331.
by junke 10y ago
Note that you are using lists, not arrays. Lists admit a simple recursive definition at the type level, which helps writing recursive code. But if you had to use arrays, how would you do?
332.
by junke 10y ago
The abstraction then becomes indistinguishable from a language feature, and you have come back full-circle to where you started. You call "random" without managing the state explicitly, except when you need to. http://c
333.
by junke 10y ago
I couldn't find either. Only the github page https://github.com/nineties/amber
334.
by junke 10y ago
See also this presentation: Creating a language using only assembly language ( https://speakerdeck.com/nineties/creating-a-language-using-o... ).
335.
by junke 10y ago
Is Erlang Object-Oriented? https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop Then, my thesis supervisor said "But you're wrong, Erlang is extremely object oriented". He said object oriented languag
336.
by junke 10y ago
Thanks for your comment.
337.
by junke 10y ago
> > And how can I believe you? this is just too late. > Huh? See it from my point of view: for all I know, you could as well have made an error, then pretended you were not really writing in CL but a nebulous Lisp; hours laters, a
338.
by junke 10y ago
Like, say, Prolog? A = [a | A] Prolog implementations provide destructive operations and mutation, but here above this is done with unification only. Arguably, you could say that unification performs mutation (but only once).
339.
by junke 10y ago
> My example wasn't meant to be in Common Lisp, just a nebulous "Lisp" dialect. And how can I believe you? this is just too late. > I'm just trying to clear up some confusion [...] You were spreading confusion by u
340.
by junke 10y ago
Really, an ERROR? Could you show the actual message that was printed? You can't, because you did not even bother to try. Here is an actual test: (defun square (x) (* x x)) (defmacro hypotenuse (x y) `(sqrt (+ (sq
341.
Modern garbage collection(medium.com)
434 points by junke 10y ago|243 comments
342.
by junke 10y ago
Yes, sure (defvar *chip*) (defun memory (&optional (chip *chip*)) (chip-memory chip)) Just binding the variable is enough. If you want to hide this variable as an implementation detail, you can use a macro: (de
343.
by junke 10y ago
> You're joking, right? It's not a trivial matter. It is a matter of context. There is a whole blog post full of hard work and you comment about an unhygienic macro. Author said: This is nice and readable. Some folks will disl
344.
by junke 10y ago
> I guess it's just another example of the usual difference in software design between CL and Scheme programmers. You mean, nitpicking about trivialities ;-) ?
345.
by junke 10y ago
I seem to recall that it wasn't always the case.
346.
by junke 10y ago
Yes, the book is great. The movie had other good things, like PVS/Lisp code in a spaceship ;-) http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/115255/what-program... https://www.reddit.com/r/lis
347.
by junke 10y ago
From "REALLY REMOTE Debugging: A Conversation with Glenn Reeves" (2010) [0]: We did see the problem before landing, but could not get it to repeat when we tried to track it down. It was not forgotten nor was it deemed unimportant
348.
by junke 10y ago
This is precisely what functional programming does. Purely functional abstractions are just that, abstractions.
349.
by junke 10y ago
Yes, sorry, Common was implied (not claiming it should always be, but here I wrote it without thinking about others). Scheme's unspecified results are annoying indeed.
350.
by junke 10y ago
In Lisp, "def..." macros, like defclass, defun, etc. return the symbol to which is bound the definition. Not essential, but useful at times. I tend to find Lisp is full of details like this.
351.
by junke 10y ago
In SBCL, type declarations are treated as assertions. If the compiler is sure the assertion is valid without doing runtime checks, it can remove them. The optimization levels are also taken into account ( http://www.sbcl.org/
352.
A Full Analysis of the 2015 GCHQ Crypto Puzzle(chriskohlhepp.wordpress.com)
3 points by junke 10y ago|0 comments
353.
by junke 10y ago
You compute baz in both branches, you can refactor. x = baz(if (something) foo() else bar())
354.
by junke 10y ago
Which is ... great? what is your point?
355.
by junke 10y ago
I agree that counting from zero has nice properties. But I must concede that e.g. in music, the surrogate for zero is the "first" beat. You are basically counting when intervals of time start, not when they end. The first second e
356.
by junke 10y ago
arr.indexOf("thing") > -1 ... this one is hardly related to zero-indexing. If indexOf returned 0, this would be equally inelegant.
357.
by junke 10y ago
Zach, do you remember one-panel comics? Signed: your hand.
358.
by junke 10y ago
But is it really? Couldn't there be a way to isolate things at the system level?
359.
Dependency Injection in a nutshell(appliedgo.net)
1 points by junke 10y ago|0 comments
360.
by junke 10y ago
Or you could have a single address space ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_address_space_operating... ), and share objects directly.

More ›