lispm

1400 ms·

3391.
by lispm 10y ago
> There's nothing “deep” deep, in the sense of a graph depth of replies. The website is designed to slow down 'deep' discussions.
3392.
by lispm 10y ago
The communication of the standard subgroup which developed CLOS is here: http://ml.cddddr.org/cl-object-oriented-programming/ The repository spans from 1984 to 1990. The group also developed a portable CLOS implementat
3393.
by lispm 10y ago
You might want to read AMOP. It's not build out of macros, but a meta-object system. It also took a decade of research&development to develop CLOS + MOP. From Flavors and LOOPS to AMOP.
3394.
by lispm 10y ago
> Argh, again I'm temporarily unable to make new posts, so here goes my reply. Please don't. You don't understand hackernews. That's a feature of this website to slow down rambling discussions. In deep discussions tak
3395.
by lispm 10y ago
> People who have an accident may become temporarily disabled, i.e., not able-bodied. Temporarily -> no need to start over. > And correctly-designed programs don't have “accidents”. That's dangerously naive. Many mission
3396.
by lispm 10y ago
> Just like able-bodied people don't need to use crutches to walk, correctly designed programs don't need to test their own invariants to run. Actually they do. When they have an accident and break something, an operation will
3397.
by lispm 10y ago
Just check the properties at runtime. CLOS provides the mechanisms for that.
3398.
by lispm 10y ago
> And macro systems are more principled than MOPs in that macros are purely static devices: you (re)define the language first, and you use it later. I would just define the classes/objects/functions first and use them later. On
3399.
by lispm 10y ago
> Everything is an object and has a class, and classes can be tampered with in arbitrary ways, precisely using the MOP. CLOS provides specific and well-designed mechanisms to extend the language via the MOP providing protocols for: *
3400.
by lispm 10y ago
> Sure, but how does that contradict my original assertion that Racket's mechanisms for extending and redefining the language are more principled than either Common Lisp's or Smalltalk's? Your original claim was "Unli
3401.
by lispm 10y ago
> Give me a compelling reason to design programs in an object-oriented way. Just to be clear, I don't find the ability to subvert existing definitions particularly attractive, because it undermines my ultimate goal to actually prove
3402.
by lispm 10y ago
I don't think macros are a good way to implement or even extend object-oriented languages. So I don't think static macroprogramming is a good substitute for a meta-object system.
3403.
by lispm 10y ago
After one had to give a phone to the US customs and border patrols for 'inspections', best to throw it away afterwards.
3404.
by lispm 10y ago
> Unlike other languages that also advertise malleability (Common Lisp, Smalltalk, etc.), Racket is malleable in principled ways, so you can define abstractions without figuratively stomping on abstractions defined by other people (which
3405.
by lispm 10y ago
> Yes, but who remembers Lisp? Some. > Whenever anybody mentions live coding and debugging, they immediately think of Smalltalk. Funky, I think first of the read-eval-print-loop of Lisp, which enabled live programming around 1960 unti
3406.
by lispm 10y ago
http://observer.com/2017/02/belarus-national-security-nato-v...
3407.
by lispm 10y ago
> Sweden doesn't have a border with Russia. Right. Not direct, but Kaliningrad is just 300km across the baltic sea. Stockholm to Kaliningrad is 500km across the baltic sea. > We have a relatively good relationship with them, and
3408.
by lispm 10y ago
A next field of conflict is Belarus, which tries to distance itself from Russia. It's not NATO, it's not a country with a security guarantee like the Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
3409.
by lispm 10y ago
I have a train line ca. 1km away where the ICE high-speed train from Hamburg to Berlin passes. It's not driving there with full speed though. The train is basically not to notice. Though I hear the freight-trains or sometime the local
3410.
by lispm 10y ago
> "Smalltalk is famous for its amazing “live coding and debugging” IDE/runtime environment" Which Smalltalk got the basics from Lisp anyway, like the image-based development, in-core editing, interactive debugging, ... Cor
3411.
by lispm 10y ago
> 320 kph is the maximum cruising speed. Average speed for a trip is typically much less than that because the trains can only hit 320 kph on certain stretches of track. France and Spain have those tracks in Europe. The newer German trac
3412.
by lispm 10y ago
France has tracks with 320km/h. Germany uses 300km/h on some tracks. Here the view from a train at that speed overtaking cars on the Autobahn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js3XDTE5Iyg China learned from it, her
3413.
by lispm 10y ago
The language is called Arc and runs on top of Scheme. The function mentioned above is here: https://github.com/wting/hackernews/blob/master/news.arc
3414.
by lispm 10y ago
Lisp had image-based distributions and dynamic typing before Smalltalk. Those and extreme oop-ness (Generic Functions, ...) plus MOP are still in Lisp (-> CLOS). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_the_Metaobjec
3415.
by lispm 10y ago
> Lisp machines were thoroughly in the "mini"computer (cabinet-sized) category and completely missed out on the microcomputer revolution. Symbolics and TI both developed microprocessors for Lisp in the 80s. TI promoted their Li
3416.
by lispm 10y ago
I use usually this classification: * a language enables functional programming: maybe Python, Java 8, ... Provides some functional programming constructs like lexical closures, but the main programming style is something else. * a language
3417.
by lispm 10y ago
When these people talk about 'Lisp', they mean Lisp 1, Lisp 1.5, Maclisp, Standard Lisp, Emacs Lisp, Lisp Machine Lisp, Common Lisp, ISLisp, Autolisp, ... All these languages are somewhat compatible with the original Lisp 1. Then
3418.
by lispm 10y ago
Lisp I of 1960 had SET and SETQ. It wasn't pure.
3419.
by lispm 10y ago
Haha, what would you do in a room with only one exit, where people are standing in the exit? I would ask those people. Obviously. Trying to find some other exit in a shop will mean trouble. I would expect that in most places of the world.
3420.
by lispm 10y ago
I don't think GNU Emacs has a plan to switch to Scheme. https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/GuileEmacs > Guile-based Emacs is a branch of GNU Emacs that replaces Emacs’s own EmacsLisp engine with the Elisp compiler

More ›