junke

79 ms·

1. 721.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   > Bugs Aren’t Recoverable Errors! This is true in the context of Midori but not in general. In a dynamic environment, you recompile your buggy function and continue working.
2. 722.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   The motivation is to reach the ultimate state of DRY: skip filling the RAII "template" again and again and use a macro. And yes, you might end up writing a compiler as a side-effect ;-)
3. 723.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   Sorry to repeat myself, but this is what Clasp [1] does (I am not affiliated with it, I promise). I am in favor of integrating tightly with a compiler whenever possible, but the selling point of c-amplify is to be independent from any compi
4. 724.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   Code: https://github.com/deplinenoise/c-amplify
5. 725.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   Amplify is mainly used to generate C code that does not need a Lisp runtime. It is used effectively as a smarter preprocessor. Embeddable Common Lisp (ECL) [1] is an efficient implementation of Lisp that compiles to C. It can be easily used
6. 726.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   But this is not a Common Lisp function, it is the AST of the previous C fragment. In fact the code makes no sense interpreted as Common Lisp.
7. 727.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   > Sometimes it’s better to be explicit than abstract. This is a false dichotomy: after all, "open" is explicit and abstract (w.r.t. actual file systems). The original article from Metz was interesting, but the example here is d
8. 728.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   You have to switch between "Run code" and "Edit code".
9. 729.▲
   by junke 11y ago

   Ugh, millennials. http://buttersafe.com/2016/02/02/a-new-generation-of-art/
10. 730.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    > TECHNICALLY Racket is a Lisp Shouting alone won't convince anyone. Note that there are people who hesitate to call Racket a Scheme ( http://stackoverflow.com/a/3358638/124319 ). I would consider Julia to b
11. 731.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    1. This perception comes from the fact that it is heavily used as an educational program. That there of course nothing bad about this. 2. The text you quote precisely communicate what Racket is: a language marketed like a programming-langua
12. 732.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    I understand that one semester is short and I think you did already a great job. I don't really understand what Fumurt brings compared to existing approaches. It seems that you are blocking all threads at one rendez-vous point and that
13. 733.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    You got the names wrong: Bob is Dilbert, Clyde is Alice and Alice actually is Wally. Wally is the 100x engineer.
14. 734.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    See also http://trafficwaves.org/
15. 735.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Of course there are side-effects. This is the whole point of a dynamic _system_ where (almost) everything can be redefined at runtime.
16. 736.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    > If name-clashes become a problem, add prefixes to the function names Or, find better names for local variables, like customer-address. In the given example, there is in fact no need to add local variables: simply calling the functions
17. 737.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    To expand a little on this, the article shows the parsed AST: { type: 'function', value: 'defn', children: [ { type: 'function_name', value: 'average' }, { type: &#x
18. 738.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Read http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/ to know more about him, or at least how he is perceived by other people.
19. 739.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Note that quickload can take a list as a parameter
20. 740.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Such as Queinnec's Lisp in Small Pieces ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_in_Small_Pieces )
21. 741.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    The static types protect you from undesired runtime behaviors with respect to OCaml's runtime semantics, but what about Javascript's one? This is better than nothing, sure, because your code is first checked in OCaml but once the
22. 742.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    The one that was painfully standardized to avoid this kind of question? "The Lisp family of languages" vs "Lisp" is an old discussion: see http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.fr/2013/01/common-lisp-is
23. 743.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Note also that the problem exposed in the article about mixing register groups with other register groups in each rule can probably be easily overcome with named registers in CL-PPCRE. See http://weitz.de/cl-ppcre/#*all
24. 744.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    For example, here below is a CL version of "Enter The Scanner". Instead of a closure, we could instanciate a class, but this is sufficient: (defun create-tokenizer (rules)
25. 745.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Thanks for sharing this.
26. 746.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    > Using a not very popular programming language can actually make it harder for you to hire people. This is a very popular opinion, but I never see anyone taking the time to bring actual arguments. Do you have any experience hiring peopl
27. 747.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Of course, metamorphosis should happen only once: (unless (typep target 'werewolf) (with-scheduling ...))
28. 748.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Strictly speaking, yes, there are no method overloading in Common Lisp. On the other hand, you have optional arguments and generic functions. Now, what happens when a vampire or a werewolf bites a warrior? Here is a rough sketch: http:&#x2
29. 749.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    Indeed. Note also that there are recommended minimum precisions and exponent sizes, which are followed in practice by CL implementations. That means that if double and long are the same type, the precision and size is at least the one reco
30. 750.▲
    by junke 11y ago

    The Common Lisp version is slightly misleading because computations are made by default with single-float types, whereas there is also short-float, double-float and long-float.