On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:46:09AM +0100, Aled Gest wrote:
> I've yet to see evidence of that in Scheme's case. If you can provide
> links to practical examples, of tools that are cleanly and efficiently
> written in Scheme, that aren't purely academic in purpose, and don't
> come with 30 pages of
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> But dbus is out of your control. If you need it, you need to accept
> how it behaves. We're talking about code *you* control.
dbus is most certainly in my control. I can remove it, and then I
lose functionality, or I can replace it with some
On 23 June 2010 01:46, Aled Gest wrote:
>> No. The extent to which you employ abstraction (in the sense of how
>> your code is architected) is your choice in Scheme and in C. What
>> Scheme gives you is very clean semantics, simple syntax, and garbage
>> collection. Together this makes creating co
> No. The extent to which you employ abstraction (in the sense of how
> your code is architected) is your choice in Scheme and in C. What
> Scheme gives you is very clean semantics, simple syntax, and garbage
> collection. Together this makes creating correct code a great deal
> easier, at the cost
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Aled Gest wrote:
>> But C does that, too. With C, you are writing in a language quite
>> removed from the actual instructions the processor executes; it's
>> hiding the complexity of machine code. So, if we take you at your
>> word, you are advocating returning to
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>> Absolutely. Furthermore, there is far more leverage at the algorithmic
>> level in a lot of cpu-intensive problems than there is from code
>> optimization. In other words, if you've writ
> But C does that, too. With C, you are writing in a language quite
> removed from the actual instructions the processor executes; it's
> hiding the complexity of machine code. So, if we take you at your
> word, you are advocating returning to writing assembly code. As
> someone who wrote his first
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> Absolutely. Furthermore, there is far more leverage at the algorithmic
> level in a lot of cpu-intensive problems than there is from code
> optimization. In other words, if you've written something in Scheme
> that's too slow and the problem i
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Thorben Krueger
wrote:
> On 22 June 2010 20:17, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>>> So, if we take you at your
>>> word, you are advocating returning to writing assembly code. As
>>> someone who wrote his first computer
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 08:52:04PM +0200, Thorben Krueger wrote:
Well, build failed for me without it, so I figured I needed it.
Another absent dependency however is "libixp-hg", that proably needs
to be added?
That's probably the case. I tend not to install libixp myself,
and certainly not a
Well, build failed for me without it, so I figured I needed it.
Another absent dependency however is "libixp-hg", that proably needs
to be added?
On 22 June 2010 15:23, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:13:26PM +0200, Thorben Krueger wrote:
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> txt2tags isn't a depe
On 22 June 2010 20:17, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
>> So, if we take you at your
>> word, you are advocating returning to writing assembly code. As
>> someone who wrote his first computer program in 1960 in assembly
>> language on an IBM 1620, and wh
Le dimanche 20 juin 2010 à 04:25:36, Martin Kopta a écrit :
> http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png
>
Good job!
--
Julien Pecqueur (JPEC)
Site: http://julienpecqueur.com
Email: j...@julienpecqueur.com
PGP:B1AA2389 (GNUPG)
IRC:jpec (irc.freenode.net)
Powered by Archlinux - Keep it simple stupi
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
> So, if we take you at your
> word, you are advocating returning to writing assembly code. As
> someone who wrote his first computer program in 1960 in assembly
> language on an IBM 1620, and who wrote an awful lot of assembly code
> in the 196
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Aled Gest wrote:
>> * Because manual memory management is a mess.
>>
>> * Because some data structures and algorithms (red-black trees, for a
>> classic example) are extremely cumbersome in C compared to other
>> languages.
>
> Hiding complexity from a prog
> * Because manual memory management is a mess.
>
> * Because some data structures and algorithms (red-black trees, for a
> classic example) are extremely cumbersome in C compared to other
> languages.
Hiding complexity from a programmer does not improve the situation, it
simply removes th
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:13:26PM +0200, Thorben Krueger wrote:
Cheers.
txt2tags isn't a dependency unless you change one of the man
pages or I change something and forget to rebuild them before I
commit. I'd rather not force people to install something when
99% of them won't need it.
--
Aled Gest writes:
>> Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
>> system has been designed for it. Lisp macros can do arbitrary
>> computation at compile-time, and the Scheme macro system required by
>> R6RS provides all the power of Lisp macros *and* supports a
>> p
> Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
> system has been designed for it. Lisp macros can do arbitrary
> computation at compile-time, and the Scheme macro system required by
> R6RS provides all the power of Lisp macros *and* supports a
> pattern-matching macro spe
Cheers.
PKGBUILD.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Rafa Garcia Gallego
wrote:
> When loading a non-reachable URI, surf tries to load it a good number
> of times before giving up. I doubt this is intended and it gets really
> annoying as you have to browse back several times to reach the
> previous page. This tiny p
Hi,
When loading a non-reachable URI, surf tries to load it a good number
of times before giving up. I doubt this is intended and it gets really
annoying as you have to browse back several times to reach the
previous page. This tiny patch solves this and removes two (legacy?)
unused pointers from
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:04:10 +0200
Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:46:16AM -0700, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > It was (at least in that paragraph). See my reply to your other message
> > for three examples of useful SYNTAX-RULES macros; SYNTAX-RULES cannot
> > be implemented properly w
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:22:52 +0200
Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:10:27AM -0700, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
> > system has been designed for it. Lisp macros can do arbitrary
> > computation at compile-time, and t
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:46:16AM -0700, Robert Ransom wrote:
> It was (at least in that paragraph). See my reply to your other message
> for three examples of useful SYNTAX-RULES macros; SYNTAX-RULES cannot
> be implemented properly without a hygienic macro system. I don't think
> you would act
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:27:10 +0200
Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:22:52PM +0200, Mate Nagy wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:10:27AM -0700, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > > Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
> > > system has been designed for it.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:22:52PM +0200, Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:10:27AM -0700, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
> > system has been designed for it. Lisp macros can do arbitrary
> > computation at compile-time,
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:10:27AM -0700, Robert Ransom wrote:
> Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
> system has been designed for it. Lisp macros can do arbitrary
> computation at compile-time, and the Scheme macro system required by
> R6RS provides all the pow
That's one of the main requirements for a boot loader.
On 06/22/10 12:10, Robert Ransom wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:08:48 +0200
pmarin wrote:
*should be used* and *can be used* have different meaning in my poor English.
Can you rationalize why Scheme *should be used *?
Scheme *sh
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:09:38 +0100
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 21 June 2010 06:09, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > Scheme *should* be used for almost everything -- bootloaders, OS
> > kernels, hardware drivers, tiny user utilities (like (Plan 9) ls and
> > mc; Unix ls no longer qualifies as a tiny util
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:08:48 +0200
pmarin wrote:
> *should be used* and *can be used* have different meaning in my poor English.
> Can you rationalize why Scheme *should be used *?
Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
system has been designed for it. Lisp macro
2010/6/20 Martin Kopta :
> http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png
src?
--
MfG
Kai Heide
Es reitet der Heidereiter durch die Heide weiter
> > http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png
> src?
ITT
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:30:16AM +0200, Kai Heide wrote:
> 2010/6/20 Martin Kopta :
> > http://imgur.com/oPOeW.png
> src?
http://bender.eugenics-research.org/picture-src
pgpgvC3FM8aaK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Anselm R Garbe dixit (2010-06-15, 06:59):
> On 14 June 2010 12:13, pancake wrote:
> > http://julien.danjou.info/blog/2010.html#Thoughts%20and%20rambling%20on%20the%20X%20protocol
>
> This post proves once again that a new window system is what everyone
> is waiting for and that it's our opportun
35 matches
Mail list logo
