Alexander Sedov writes:
> May I get links to your hard works or at least to your papers, or all
> you have is some stuff you failed to sell to Yahoo, like that one guy?
Wait, I thought he DID sell it, and now farms Chocobos over at Hacker
News?
I originally had links, but thought it gauche, but
2013/7/2 Craig Brozefsky :
>
> Good morning, some good-natured trollbait to go with my coffee!
> I've spent about half my professional career (15+ yrs) working on Lisp
> products -- Common Lisp, and Clojure specifically. In both
> cases, accomplishing what we had to do in the time we had would not
Good morning, some good-natured trollbait to go with my coffee!
Alexander Sedov writes:
> I personally consider it irrelevant. People just don't actually write
> in Lisp, because it's either painful or results in slowness. Lisp is a
> great language for teaching abstract CS concepts and languag
Andrew Gwozdziewycz dixit:
>SBCL and Racket are certainly faster than Python, PHP, Ruby, Perl in most
Less portable: http://packages.debian.org/sid/sbcl#pdownload
bye,
//mirabilos
--
FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much
*much* more bare bones. But it turns ou
Hi,
> Well, nowadays every toy language out there has CFFI, and it's far
> less pleasant to use than native libraries. I have nothing to say
True, but have you ever tried to use any of it? I did and I have to say
that 99% of them are half baked solutions just to satisfy examples.
Even for more po
2013/7/2 Andrew Gwozdziewycz :
> SBCL and Racket are certainly faster than Python, PHP, Ruby, Perl in most
> cases. SBCL, since it is more or less an interactive native code compiler is
> faster yet. You'll have to qualify painful. Are you referring to syntax? If
> so, no Lisper even sees parenthes
>> And no libraries.
>
> I urge you to check out Quicklisp (for Common Lisp,
> http://www.quicklisp.org/) and reevaluate your statement. While the
> Quicklisp + other Common Lisp library repos aren't as exhaustive as CPAN,
> they usually contain very high quality code (unlike CPAN, or PyPi, or
> wh
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Alexander Sedov wrote:
> 2013/6/29 oneofthem :
> > is there any reason why lisp isn't mentioned much in the suckless
> > community?
> > considered irrelevant, harmful or what?
> I personally consider it irrelevant. People just don't actually write
> in Lisp, because
2013/6/29 oneofthem :
> is there any reason why lisp isn't mentioned much in the suckless
> community?
> considered irrelevant, harmful or what?
I personally consider it irrelevant. People just don't actually write
in Lisp, because it's either painful or results in slowness. Lisp is a
great languag
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> Andrew Gwozdziewycz writes:
>
> >Lisps are loaded with this sort of stuff, and while I love it, and
> >enjoy using them thinking about them, reading about them, they just
> >aren't practical for mortals who are used to PHP.
>
>
Andrew Gwozdziewycz writes:
>Lisps are loaded with this sort of stuff, and while I love it, and
>enjoy using them thinking about them, reading about them, they just
>aren't practical for mortals who are used to PHP.
You keep confusing simple and easy.
http://www.infoq.com/presentati
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Louis-Guillaume Gagnon <
louis.guillaume.gag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/6/29 Andrew Gwozdziewycz :
> > I don't speak for the suckless community, but despite the fact that I
> love
> > it, Lisp is complicated and not very simple at all
>
> It's worth noting that th
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> Andrew Gwozdziewycz writes:
>
> >I don't speak for the suckless community, but despite the fact that I
> >love it, Lisp is complicated and not very simple at all, which I'm
> >guessing is why you don't hear about it. I'm curre
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> r5rs is much more limited in scope than c99, it has a synthetic
> design that provides the bare minimum to express high level
> computations, while c99 has an ugly pragmatic design, the result
> of long evolution and contradicting const
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:11:42 -0400 Jacob Todd
wrote:
> how is that good news? that's horrible news.
(That's the joke.)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> but there is good news for those who think c is bad: there are
> emerging platforms which may give rise to different languages:
> jvm on mobile and enterprise systems and the web with js..
>
how is that good news? that's horrible news.
* Louis-Guillaume Gagnon [2013-06-29
13:35:58 -0400]:
> It's worth noting that the R5RS scheme standard is only ~50 pages
> long: http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/
> In comparison, the C99 standard is ~550 pages. I would say that the
> scheme dialect is pretty simple.
r5rs is muc
2013/6/29 Andrew Gwozdziewycz :
> I don't speak for the suckless community, but despite the fact that I love
> it, Lisp is complicated and not very simple at all
It's worth noting that the R5RS scheme standard is only ~50 pages
long: http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/
In comparison,
Andrew Gwozdziewycz writes:
>I don't speak for the suckless community, but despite the fact that I
>love it, Lisp is complicated and not very simple at all, which I'm
>guessing is why you don't hear about it. I'm currently playing around
>with attempting to make a minimal, embedda
I don't speak for the suckless community, but despite the fact that I love
it, Lisp is complicated and not very simple at all, which I'm guessing is
why you don't hear about it. I'm currently playing around with attempting
to make a minimal, embeddable, unix friendly, without complications
dialect,
is there any reason why lisp isn't mentioned much in the suckless
community?
considered irrelevant, harmful or what?
21 matches
Mail list logo
