Got it.
Thanks Alex.
Regards,
Kashyap
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:14 PM Alexander Burger
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 09:46:05PM -0700, C K Kashyap wrote:
> > gcc. Things work fine when I use gcc 7.5 or above on Linux. However,
> when I
> > use gcc 6.3, I find that some of the symbols are not
I just noticed that all the picolisp emails were going into my spam
folder!!!
Thanks Alex -- phew - I thought I had messed up something!
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:02 PM Alexander Burger
wrote:
> Hi Kashyap,
>
> > (let (A 1 (B . C) (2 3)) B) -> 2
> >
> > where as in miniPicoLisp (compiled using
>> Parenthesis sometimes unneccessarily seem to keep people away from Lisp as
>> "all day programming language".
Javascript:
const superSize = n => +n.toString().split('').sort((a, b) => b - a).join('')
Emacslisp:
(defun superSize (n) (string-to-number (seq-sort #'> (number-to-string n
A highly inspiring, philosophical Podcast about Abstractions in Lisp, that
- until today - you simply can't do in other programming languages:
https://podcasts.google.com/?q=Lisp+stratified
Wonderful!ZEW 原始邮件 发件人： Guido Stepken 日期： 2020年4月10日周五 半夜11:03收件人： picolisp@software-lab.de主题： Towards a more readable Pico(Lisp) ... nobody needs parenthesis!Hi all!Parenthesis sometimes unneccessarily seem to keep people away from Lisp as "all day programming language". It's
Hi all!
Parenthesis sometimes unneccessarily seem to keep people away from Lisp as
"all day programming language". It's confusing their brain.
How about this "innovative" new Lisp syntax?
https://github.com/birchb1024/genyris/blob/master/examples/queens.g
It's the more readable version,
Hi Guido!
Thanks for the additional information, very exciting!
On 10.04.20 16:17, Guido Stepken wrote:
> Hi Andreas!
>
> My implementation not really is a pure Lambda calculus, but rather a
> so called "Krivine Machine" that, in fact, consists of 4 instructions,
> als 'subset' of the more
Hi Andreas!
My implementation not really is a pure Lambda calculus, but rather a so
called "Krivine Machine" that, in fact, consists of 4 instructions, als
'subset' of the more universal MOV instruction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krivine_machine
Also see the famous "Landin Machine" with 10
Hi Alex!
Yes, indeed! Code typically gets quite large quickly when compiling the
miniPicoLisp into "SISC Code". But luckily your miniPicoLisp was tiny
enough.
But adding a few more Lisp - Instructions to SISC will significantly reduce
the code length. Y-combinator, the "pure Lisper's while loop"
Hi Guido,
> I've succeeded now to design my own CPU. I was curious, how many
> instructions - e.g. from Intel Instruction Set Architecture- i could
> ...
> Only 1 - in words "ONE" - single instruction left: MOV.
Yeah, this single instruction set fascinated me too, since the early 90s when we
>
> Only 1 - in words "ONE" - single instruction left: MOV.
congratulations, you discovered lambda expressions, the fundamental idea
on which the concept of LISP is based.
Thanks for your post, very interesting!
Keep on! Our group of radical IT purists is growing ;-)
This crisis will only
Hi all!
miniPicoLisp is a masterpiece of simplicity:
https://github.com/8l/miniPicoLisp/tree/master/src
Now i wanted to know, what the simplest processor could be, that would be
able to run miniPicoLisp.
Inspired by the famous book "From NAND to miniPicoLisp":
https://www.nand2tetris.org/
12 matches
Mail list logo
