n_c

3 ms·

1.
by n_c 13y ago
I found CL really nice. One nice feature about SBCL is it can be incredibly fast. Sure, not as fast as raw C, but it approaches it. (This is useful when you're using CL as your IR.) The macros were the big win for me with this. I have
2.
by n_c 13y ago
Yeah, I hope at some point to do that. I expect only a few bytes need to be added to make the outputs be exactly identical. Almost all code-golf programs will be correct output rule "if a 1-d list is on the top of the stack dump it joi
3.
by n_c 13y ago
Okay, I had an issue with www.rhoscript.com and rhoscript.com causing XHR errors.
4.
by n_c 13y ago
re: the try.html page: don't include the "run" word. That's just a button I put on the pages to send you there automatically. "hello" print
5.
by n_c 13y ago
Not yet, that's definitely a priority though. Well that's embarrassing! (fixed)
6.
by n_c 13y ago
(By "common problems" I assume you mean "common codegolf problems" and not "common issues programmers encounter using it" -- if you do mean the latter let me know.) The best compilation of code-golfing problems
7.
by n_c 13y ago
It's very similar. There are major differences with how functions are typed, however. Namely, in Cat, they are, and in this, they are not. There's a good reason for that, though! Imagine you write the program "(add print) cal
8.
by n_c 13y ago
The execution model of rhoScript isn't so different from that of any other concatenative language. There are two differences I can think of at the moment: - The lazyness of lists. "1 naturals (add) map" will produce an infini
9.
by n_c 13y ago
I submitted a link to this yesterday, but realized I misconfigured nginx/sbcl and so the "try" page ended up almost crashing the server, so I took it the link down a few minutes later. I'm resubmitting now. If anyone has
10.
Show HN: I designed a language for code golf, compiling to Common Lisp(rhoscript.com)
102 points by n_c 13y ago|40 comments