Hi Jakob, > I will not quote, because I did not make myself very clear I think. > I am not proposing a PicoLisp editor for the sake of an editor, or > the writing of extensive PicoLisp only libraries.
Yes, I understand. But my original mail was just about that. > I argue, (or tried - unsuccessfully) for the value of having > a few examples of how to call C libraries. Hmm, I think there are already quite some examples, for one in the PicoLisp distribution: lib/math.l lib/openGl.l misc/fibo.l misc/crc.l or in rosettacode: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Active_Directory/Connect#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Call_a_foreign-language_function#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Call_a_function_in_a_shared_library#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Joystick_position#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/MD5#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Regular_expressions#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Truncate_a_file#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Window_creation/X11#PicoLisp > When I said curl, I > did not mean curl, the application, but curl, the library. Yes, I understood that too. Calling the external 'curl' program is easier, though, and the overhead should not matter here. > - Like a very tiny gameloop calling the SDL library. OK > - Something using the curl library. (Not forking the curl binary.) Yes, but see my comment above. > - Something which uses a Fast Fourier Transform library > [http://www.fftw.org/] . > > Or any idea, I just quickly tried to come up with something. Good idea! There is also a rosetta task about that, iirc. So, yes, examples are good and important. But this was not the reason why I wrote the original posting. It was about _which_ libraries are lacking, inhibiting PicoLisp to be useful. In addition to writing it in the IRC channel, Henrik complained about that in several places, e.g. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.picolisp.general/1558 Take for instance what I see as the biggest problem with PicoLisp; the lack of existing libraries for doing common suff. http://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software-lab.de/msg01983.html Having a Java version might help PL a lot on the popularity front, it should completely bypass the catch 22 problem of low interest due to to few libraries and few libraries due to low interest. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60796/what-are-the-reasons-why-clojure-is-hyped-and-picolisp-widely-ignored it makes sense that Clojure would win out over Pico-Lisp solely for its compatibility with existing programming languages and existing libraries. and this is what I don't agree about, and would like to discuss. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
