#2: most languages are difficult to read until your eyes are 'tuned' to it. Lisp is no different. When I started I agree it was hard to see the program flow. It did not take long before the ()'s disappeared from my attention and the program structure became more accessible. I love that everything in Lisp is an expression, there is not statement/experession distinction. This make the code incredibly flexible. Also, CL macros are extremely powerful, they are made possible by the simple syntax.
Re:Static code verifications, anyone?
on
Practical Common Lisp
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You are complaining about dynamic programming in general. The compiler cannot always detect that a function is missing because the function does not even have to exist until runtime. I can build up functions in the program and call them. I could load a compiled file which contains the function at runtime. I could call a function by name, and that name may not be known until runtime.
You claim to love Lisp, but I don't think you have really ever sunk your teeth into it, otherwise you would understand that what you gain with Common Lisp's dynamic nature makes up for what you lose in compile time error checking. I'm a big boy, I don't need the compiler holding my hand and telling me that function x is not found or that argument y is the wrong type. My code runs correctly because it is written correctly. I just use tools besides compiler type checking to get it to this state.
The impossible odds argument against evolution (or abiogenesis I guess) is bogus anyway. Sure my odds of winning the lottery may be 50,000,000 to one, but what if I buy 50,000,000 tickets? Now what are my odds? 100 billion stars times 100 billion galaxies times many billion years = a lot of chances for self replicating molecules to form. Add in the multi-worlds theory and its inevitable.
I read somewhere that if the [tiny] amount of uranium that naturally occurs in coal were collected and fissioned, it would produce a lot more energy than burning the coal itself does.
Of course burning coal introduces this radioactivity into the environment, in addition to CO2 and pollutants of course.
One argument I have heard against nuclear power that I am curious about is that it takes more energy to build the plant than the plant will produce in its lifetime.
Why yes. Don't you know that all government systems are connected directly to the internet, that system critical nuclear computers are also connected to the internet, and people think it's a good idea to create a device that can remotely melt down every reactor in the country and let some guy carry it on a train. Also, high security offices like CTU don't care if you bring in any old cell phone and use it, and although everyone needs fake sounding security levels, it's ok because you can always just look over someone's shoulder or use their system when they got up to take a shit.. sheeeeeesh
Yes, that's why when spinning skaters pull their arms and legs in they spin so much slower.
And yes, your velocity will only ever change if your mass does. This explains how swingsets (kicking your legs) and rocking chairs work. Obviously shifting your center of gravity has no effect.
If more slashdot geniuses like yourself would speak up more often you could really straighten out the so called experts.
Also, if we lived 1000 years, there would be alot more to gain from being agressive
Not sure about this. Seems to me there would be a lot more to lose. Being agressive now might reap a big reward, but might cost you your final 50 years if you get locked up or the lethal injection. If lifespans were 1000 years, that's 970 years you stand to lose.
"Reliably cross-platform" is the key. This is where Scheme and Lisp and Haskell fall down.
Oh I don't know. I have a ton of code that runs identically on Linux (CMUCL) and Windows (ACL) with a small amount of implementation specific coding. FWIW I am using external libs for writing PDF files and reading/writing ZIPs. The linkage to these libraries is the primary place where there are coding differences, but again they are small and localized.
In the obvious way:
A ``def'' form executed inside a function definition defines a local function that can be returned or passed around. Free variables used in the nested function can access the local variables of the function containing the def. That part is actually more natural than doing the same in CommonLisp (Python, like Scheme, but unlike CommonLisp, does not have separate value and function slots on symbols).
I didn't realize Python supported closures. Can the closure variables be modified or are they read only? Also, using 'def' in a Python function sounds identical to using FLET or LABELS in a CL function. Of course in CL you can also just use LAMBDA.
Also, could you define more than one local 'def' function and return them all? Could they access the same closure variables?
No, the average joe doesn't trust science because it is over his head and usually scary, and emotions are more powerful than reason. Actually I'll go one further and say the average joe is a fucking moron.
yeah but my gallery has *animated* fractals.. and not just static zooms either.
Re:Alas those Days are Gone
on
Digital Retro
·
· Score: 1
Heh, I had an Apple IIgs, and before GSOS came out all we had was ProDOS. I was jealous of those cool fonts on the Mac so I tried to write a display output routine that would allow different fonts. I wrote a font editor in BASIC, and the output code I wrote in 6502 and typed in the hex codes in the monitor. (I couldn't afford Orca yet).. I can still remember that triumphant moment when I plugged my routine address into the system output hook, and saw my old english looking letters coming out on the screen. Of course it was far too slow to use, but it was a fun exercise nonetheless.
I also agree with this... I feel that the whole 'babies/infants learn languages more easily than adults' is right up there with the whole 'we only use 10% of our brains' myth.
See http://www.zompist.com/whylang.html for an interesting discussion of this and related topics.
This argument is intriguing but contains the implicit requirement that something cannot exist without having been created. Since we have no idea what if anything exists outside our universe, or more importantly in what sense it 'exists' at all as compared to our experience of what it means to 'exist', we really can't insist on requirements like for a universe to exist it must be created.
That reality (the 'meta-reality' if you will) really does not have to be like our experience of reality at all, with regard to action/reaction, causalty etc. You touched on this by pointing out that the second existant would have inconcievable mental power. I would go a step further and say we can't assume that 'mental powers' exist at all there (not that I can use the term 'there' here either) as such, or 'personalities' or 'intelligence' or time or space or whatever.
But there are plenty of eye-witnesses to his prior existence.
OK so let's say great great great grandfather then. There are no eye-witnesses to his existence now are there?
And your objection to his objection based on the laws of thermodynamics has been answered countless times also:)
Ah, but the important question is who's objection is correct? After all, I'm sure flat-earthers (if they truly exist) answer their objector's objections to. That doesn't invalidate those objections. OK the word 'objection' is starting to sound odd now. I think I'll stop writing.
What I find interesting is that you can read the minds of these viewers to know that they 'accept it without any question whatsoever'..
Your three requirements preclude the big bang and evolution ONLY if interpreted in the most literal way possible.
Effects of the big bang and evolution CAN be observed. Theories related to big bang physics and biology/speciation/natural selection/whatever can be postulated and tested, and those tests can be repeated.
You might as well claim your great grandfather couldn't have existed:
1) You can't observe him!! 2) You can't test him!! 3) You can't repeat him!!
Furthermore, your objection based on the laws of thermodynamics is uninformed and has been answered countless times.
Right, just like word processors have made it easy for everyone to write a book, and calculators have made everyone good at math. And boy you should hear the music I can play on my casio keyboard. Why, I could play 20 different songs right out of the box just by pressing a button!
Slashdot Mirror
How specifically are function cells and arrays poorly designed?
#2: most languages are difficult to read until your eyes are 'tuned' to it. Lisp is no different. When I started I agree it was hard to see the program flow. It did not take long before the ()'s disappeared from my attention and the program structure became more accessible. I love that everything in Lisp is an expression, there is not statement/experession distinction. This make the code incredibly flexible. Also, CL macros are extremely powerful, they are made possible by the simple syntax.
You are complaining about dynamic programming in general. The compiler cannot always detect that a function is missing because the function does not even have to exist until runtime. I can build up functions in the program and call them. I could load a compiled file which contains the function at runtime. I could call a function by name, and that name may not be known until runtime.
You claim to love Lisp, but I don't think you have really ever sunk your teeth into it, otherwise you would understand that what you gain with Common Lisp's dynamic nature makes up for what you lose in compile time error checking. I'm a big boy, I don't need the compiler holding my hand and telling me that function x is not found or that argument y is the wrong type. My code runs correctly because it is written correctly. I just use tools besides compiler type checking to get it to this state.
The impossible odds argument against evolution (or abiogenesis I guess) is bogus anyway. Sure my odds of winning the lottery may be 50,000,000 to one, but what if I buy 50,000,000 tickets? Now what are my odds?
100 billion stars times 100 billion galaxies times many billion years = a lot of chances for self replicating molecules to form. Add in the multi-worlds theory and its inevitable.
but the prefix form also allows things like:
(apply #'+ some-list-of-numbers) ; apply + to an arbitrary list of numbers
or
(apply #'< some-list-of-numbers) ; is list sorted?
fyi #'+ is how we refer to the function '+'
With infix notation you'd have to hack up some ugly loop..
I read somewhere that if the [tiny] amount of uranium that naturally occurs in coal were collected and fissioned, it would produce a lot more energy than burning the coal itself does.
Of course burning coal introduces this radioactivity into the environment, in addition to CO2 and pollutants of course.
One argument I have heard against nuclear power that I am curious about is that it takes more energy to build the plant than the plant will produce in its lifetime.
Why yes. Don't you know that all government systems are connected directly to the internet, that system critical nuclear computers are also connected to the internet, and people think it's a good idea to create a device that can remotely melt down every reactor in the country and let some guy carry it on a train. Also, high security offices like CTU don't care if you bring in any old cell phone and use it, and although everyone needs fake sounding security levels, it's ok because you can always just look over someone's shoulder or use their system when they got up to take a shit.. sheeeeeesh
Aw come on, I'm really curious about the food now. Let's hear about the it.
Yes, that's why when spinning skaters pull their arms and legs in they spin so much slower.
And yes, your velocity will only ever change if your mass does. This explains how swingsets (kicking your legs) and rocking chairs work. Obviously shifting your center of gravity has no effect.
If more slashdot geniuses like yourself would speak up more often you could really straighten out the so called experts.
Also, if we lived 1000 years, there would be alot more to gain from being agressive
Not sure about this. Seems to me there would be a lot more to lose. Being agressive now might reap a big reward, but might cost you your final 50 years if you get locked up or the lethal injection. If lifespans were 1000 years, that's 970 years you stand to lose.
I would mod you up if I had any points. I agree wholeheartedly.
Personally, making it to 100 with the health and life quality of, say a 50 year old, would be a huge improvement I wouldn't mind.
Oh I don't know. I have a ton of code that runs identically on Linux (CMUCL) and Windows (ACL) with a small amount of implementation specific coding. FWIW I am using external libs for writing PDF files and reading/writing ZIPs. The linkage to these libraries is the primary place where there are coding differences, but again they are small and localized.
I didn't realize Python supported closures. Can the closure variables be modified or are they read only? Also, using 'def' in a Python function sounds identical to using FLET or LABELS in a CL function. Of course in CL you can also just use LAMBDA.
Also, could you define more than one local 'def' function and return them all? Could they access the same closure variables?
No, the average joe doesn't trust science because it is over his head and usually scary, and emotions are more powerful than reason. Actually I'll go one further and say the average joe is a fucking moron.
yeah but my gallery has *animated* fractals.. and not just static zooms either.
Heh, I had an Apple IIgs, and before GSOS came out all we had was ProDOS. I was jealous of those cool fonts on the Mac so I tried to write a display output routine that would allow different fonts. I wrote a font editor in BASIC, and the output code I wrote in 6502 and typed in the hex codes in the monitor. (I couldn't afford Orca yet).. I can still remember that triumphant moment when I plugged my routine address into the system output hook, and saw my old english looking letters coming out on the screen. Of course it was far too slow to use, but it was a fun exercise nonetheless.
It tastes like grandma.
I also agree with this... I feel that the whole 'babies/infants learn languages more easily than adults' is right up there with the whole 'we only use 10% of our brains' myth.
See http://www.zompist.com/whylang.html for an interesting discussion of this and related topics.
Yeah now we are down to second and third-hand accounts.
Which is exactly the way the big bang and other events in cosmologically distant history are studied: second and third hand evidence.
This argument is intriguing but contains the implicit requirement that something cannot exist without having been created. Since we have no idea what if anything exists outside our universe, or more importantly in what sense it 'exists' at all as compared to our experience of what it means to 'exist', we really can't insist on requirements like for a universe to exist it must be created.
That reality (the 'meta-reality' if you will) really does not have to be like our experience of reality at all, with regard to action/reaction, causalty etc. You touched on this by pointing out that the second existant would have inconcievable mental power. I would go a step further and say we can't assume that 'mental powers' exist at all there (not that I can use the term 'there' here either) as such, or 'personalities' or 'intelligence' or time or space or whatever.
But there are plenty of eye-witnesses to his prior existence.
:)
OK so let's say great great great grandfather then. There are no eye-witnesses to his existence now are there?
And your objection to his objection based on the laws of thermodynamics has been answered countless times also
Ah, but the important question is who's objection is correct? After all, I'm sure flat-earthers (if they truly exist) answer their objector's objections to. That doesn't invalidate those objections. OK the word 'objection' is starting to sound odd now. I think I'll stop writing.
What I find interesting is that you can read the minds of these viewers to know that they 'accept it without any question whatsoever'..
Your three requirements preclude the big bang and evolution ONLY if interpreted in the most literal way possible.
Effects of the big bang and evolution CAN be observed. Theories related to big bang physics and biology/speciation/natural selection/whatever can be postulated and tested, and those tests can be repeated.
You might as well claim your great grandfather couldn't have existed:
1) You can't observe him!!
2) You can't test him!!
3) You can't repeat him!!
Furthermore, your objection based on the laws of thermodynamics is uninformed and has been answered countless times.
Well is Vstore really different or not? If it is different then you are the ass, not he.
Right, just like word processors have made it easy for everyone to write a book, and calculators have made everyone good at math. And boy you should hear the music I can play on my casio keyboard. Why, I could play 20 different songs right out of the box just by pressing a button!
wouldn't a MASER burn the crop, instead of making it look like a bunch of people with some boards and ropes flattened it?