Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Nope. Lisp has been there before all current standards (and many outdated). Lisp has been there before C even existed. Let alone C++, Java and LAMP. What you're trying to say is that Lisp is not popular because it is not popular.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure what you meant by that, but many Common Lisp implementations compile and run equivalent in speed to C/C++.
As I already mentioned elsewhere, I meant exactly what you've written. If Lisp is as performant as C then implementing a subset with a different grammar that works substantially slower seems strange and does not seem to be progressive.
But some of the other readers pointed out that it can be useful even if only to indirectly popularize Lisp in the end. But I'd rather spend the time and energy by implementing and maintaining a wider standard library for Lisp and do more evangelization.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Which Lisp? One which (as most implementations of Common Lisp do these days) appropriately and reasonably gets compared to the output of a C compiler?
Well, that's precisely what I was trying to point out. If I build a new and presumably better (in my own opinion) programming language starting off with Lisp, and my implementation turns out to be less powerful and slower than an average CL implementation, is that progress?
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As funny as your comment is, it made me wonder... There is a very loud pro-Lisp community that tells everyone who is not using Lisp that they should since it solves most of the problems they have in the first place. OK, fair enough. But I have that strange feeling that assuming the developers to be usually very smart and very lazy, we would see them all convert to Lisp if it really was the ultimate answer [1].
And what makes me think that Lisp was and still is widely ignored? There are a couple of points here but the most important is: we don't really see a large, consistent standard library for Lisp. So we could easily turn the Greenspun's 10th Rule backwards to say: any sufficiently complicated Common Lisp program contains an ad hoc, informally specified, bug ridden, slow implementation of half of Java's standard library.
So, where's the catch? Why isn't Lisp popular if it's so 1337?
[1] But we know it's 42.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
In the end, sometimes less flexibility and more standardization is better. In C & C-derviative languages you'll never wonder if what you're looking at is a function or not.
Your point is apt but your example is not quite wellchosen. I mean, in C with its preprocessor macros, typedefs, etc. you could easily define mini-languages that are very difficult to understand for someone not familiar with the code.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
An interesting phenomenon is that most stuff that people perceive as a reason to go to ruby from perl, are available in perl too, but somehow they offer those stuff an novel.
Yeah, we can also say that any feature of Prolog is available at assembler level. You only have to know how to use all these MOVs and JMPs. Speaking more seriously, though, I guess that it's not about the availability of language features but about the overall lightbulb effect ("OMFG! I would NEVER thought of that. And this is SO obvious!", etc.). Python for instance advertises that "it fits your brain". And maybe it's just about it. Perl is so flexible that it often is just too complicated to comprehend.
About a fair Ruby/Perl comparison, I don't really know. I'm just like you, too lazy to check this one out.
Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, it's cool to virtualize, introduce dialects, interpret, etc. etc. Now, for the first time ever, we have cheap mainstream computer hardware that's capable of handling all these ideas in an acceptable way. But, isn't it a huge waste of resources? What about performance?
I mean, take Lisp and its performance. Compare it to Ruby's. Matz said himself that Ruby started as a kind of Lisp reconsideration. And you call this progress?
The thing is that you can implement a dynamic language that isn't painfully slow. Take Lua for instance. Eh, if only it had Unicode support.
The 3-step system download system is actually worth noting. I managed to find every single phone model I (or someone in my family) own and get a detailed message about whether it supports the Basic or Advanced version, possible issues (and this is actually a per model piece of information), they even have versions in my native language. It's great. It's a bit of a contrast to the annoying "suit yourself" release systems often found in other J2ME software websites.
"This build, codenamed FiReflowfox, comes from the development branch of Firefox called REFLOW_20060603_BRANCH, and has an entirely rewritten page layout engine, that has some serious bugs, including the inability to display list and combo boxes. However, it does pass Acid2 version 1.1, and also renders most pages correctly (although it has problems with the tag "sandwich"...)."
Yeah, almost makes sense. Dumbass.
You mean a spell checker? True, you sure could use one.
Re:Please refer to my posting history, my good sir
on
Sid Meier Responds
·
· Score: 1
A valid statement. Although, what you miss is that all these "Thank you, Slashdot loves you!" posts are pretty pointless and disturbing for many Slashdotters. Speaking of Andy Tanenbaum, I in fact used Minix some years ago and own a couple of his books.
So, to end this whole argument I'll just remind you that you are dubbed the latest Arch Karma Whore here. Check this term and see why people see you like that. It's not they don't like you nick or something. It's all about your posts.
Slashdotters likes post are interesting, present a new view on some thing or are funny. Try to keep up.
Regards,
Lucas Langa
Re:Please refer to my posting history, my good sir
on
Sid Meier Responds
·
· Score: 1
You gotta be kidding. So you are convinced that your "Thank you" posts are necessary and fun, even if you don't have any idea of who the person you thank is? Way to go, way to go.
Regards,
Lucas Langa
Re:Please refer to my posting history, my good sir
on
Sid Meier Responds
·
· Score: 1
Sid Meier reads the thread and thinks "Wow, these are the most hardcore Civ players... What have I done..."
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Lisp has been there before all current standards (and many outdated). Lisp has been there before C even existed. Let alone C++, Java and LAMP. What you're trying to say is that Lisp is not popular because it is not popular.
As I already mentioned elsewhere, I meant exactly what you've written. If Lisp is as performant as C then implementing a subset with a different grammar that works substantially slower seems strange and does not seem to be progressive.
But some of the other readers pointed out that it can be useful even if only to indirectly popularize Lisp in the end. But I'd rather spend the time and energy by implementing and maintaining a wider standard library for Lisp and do more evangelization.
Well, that's precisely what I was trying to point out. If I build a new and presumably better (in my own opinion) programming language starting off with Lisp, and my implementation turns out to be less powerful and slower than an average CL implementation, is that progress?
As funny as your comment is, it made me wonder... There is a very loud pro-Lisp community that tells everyone who is not using Lisp that they should since it solves most of the problems they have in the first place. OK, fair enough. But I have that strange feeling that assuming the developers to be usually very smart and very lazy, we would see them all convert to Lisp if it really was the ultimate answer [1].
And what makes me think that Lisp was and still is widely ignored? There are a couple of points here but the most important is: we don't really see a large, consistent standard library for Lisp. So we could easily turn the Greenspun's 10th Rule backwards to say: any sufficiently complicated Common Lisp program contains an ad hoc, informally specified, bug ridden, slow implementation of half of Java's standard library.
So, where's the catch? Why isn't Lisp popular if it's so 1337?
[1] But we know it's 42.
Your point is apt but your example is not quite wellchosen. I mean, in C with its preprocessor macros, typedefs, etc. you could easily define mini-languages that are very difficult to understand for someone not familiar with the code.
Yeah, we can also say that any feature of Prolog is available at assembler level. You only have to know how to use all these MOVs and JMPs. Speaking more seriously, though, I guess that it's not about the availability of language features but about the overall lightbulb effect ("OMFG! I would NEVER thought of that. And this is SO obvious!", etc.). Python for instance advertises that "it fits your brain". And maybe it's just about it. Perl is so flexible that it often is just too complicated to comprehend.
About a fair Ruby/Perl comparison, I don't really know. I'm just like you, too lazy to check this one out.
Yeah, it's cool to virtualize, introduce dialects, interpret, etc. etc. Now, for the first time ever, we have cheap mainstream computer hardware that's capable of handling all these ideas in an acceptable way. But, isn't it a huge waste of resources? What about performance?
I mean, take Lisp and its performance. Compare it to Ruby's. Matz said himself that Ruby started as a kind of Lisp reconsideration. And you call this progress?
The thing is that you can implement a dynamic language that isn't painfully slow. Take Lua for instance. Eh, if only it had Unicode support.
Is it?
The 3-step system download system is actually worth noting. I managed to find every single phone model I (or someone in my family) own and get a detailed message about whether it supports the Basic or Advanced version, possible issues (and this is actually a per model piece of information), they even have versions in my native language. It's great. It's a bit of a contrast to the annoying "suit yourself" release systems often found in other J2ME software websites.
e) CowboyNeal?
"This build, codenamed FiReflowfox, comes from the development branch of Firefox called REFLOW_20060603_BRANCH, and has an entirely rewritten page layout engine, that has some serious bugs, including the inability to display list and combo boxes. However, it does pass Acid2 version 1.1, and also renders most pages correctly (although it has problems with the tag "sandwich" ...)."
Yeah, almost makes sense. Dumbass.
If you use Visual Basic, this book is definitely not the help you need.
Wasn't it 2010?
What's wrong with GTK2? No, seriously, I thought it was a big step ahead compared to GTK1.x.
Are you sure? What about Lindows?
You mean a spell checker? True, you sure could use one.
A valid statement. Although, what you miss is that all these "Thank you, Slashdot loves you!" posts are pretty pointless and disturbing for many Slashdotters. Speaking of Andy Tanenbaum, I in fact used Minix some years ago and own a couple of his books. So, to end this whole argument I'll just remind you that you are dubbed the latest Arch Karma Whore here. Check this term and see why people see you like that. It's not they don't like you nick or something. It's all about your posts. Slashdotters likes post are interesting, present a new view on some thing or are funny. Try to keep up. Regards, Lucas Langa
You gotta be kidding. So you are convinced that your "Thank you" posts are necessary and fun, even if you don't have any idea of who the person you thank is? Way to go, way to go. Regards, Lucas Langa
Sid Meier reads the thread and thinks "Wow, these are the most hardcore Civ players... What have I done..."