RE: PicoLisp on quora.com
>> * one implementation is canonical: amd64 > >Meanwhile, I feel, the arm64 implementation the is primary one. Good to know! Yes, I think arm will become/remain dominate for a while. Cheers, --Dave L.
Re: PicoLisp on quora.com
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:34:23PM +, Loyall, David wrote: > This is a guess: the original asker is more familiar with Common Lisp than > picolisp. > > So, a fair answer would be to describe picolisp in terms that CL users are > familiar with. > > Sorry, I'm not qualified to do that myself. But, here are some notes for > others: > > * picolisp is a VM and the mechanics of that VM aren't hidden from the > programmer--everthing is implementation specific. > > * the picolisp implementations are first class citizens, the picolisp > language is second class. > > * A CL specification exists and it is important. Agreed to all :) > (Is there a picolisp specification? Since I don't know, it probably isn't > important...) I would say there is: The files doc/structures64 and doc/ref.html > * one implementation is canonical: amd64 Meanwhile, I feel, the arm64 implementation the is primary one. > * picolisp was made mostly by one person. > > * picolisp is small, light, and elegant. T ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: PicoLisp on quora.com
Hi Andreas, On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 05:07:46PM +0200, andr...@itship.ch wrote: > Disclaimer: I don't really know Common Lisp. > > Just a try, use it as inspiration not as answer, would need re-wording to be > used as quora answer: > > - they're about the same age, both inspired by Maclisp, both used > commercially since the 1980s > - picolisp is a language and runtime VM - CL is a language specification with > multiple implementations > - CL libraries may often be platform-dependent (or depend on a certain > compiler to be used) - code in picolisp has much less such dependencies > - picolisp has no compiler, purely interpreted by design - CL is usually > compiled, interpreted only during development > - picolisp directly evals s-expressions, the structure of the memory > representation is the same as the structure of the source code - common lisp > compiles to XX (?) > - only 3 strong types: list, number (arterially big signed integers), symbol > (with property list), all other types are dynamically duck-typed - common > lisp has many types (?) > - picolisp uses F-Expressions (FEXPRs, Functions which decide themselves > if/when/how to evaluate arguments) - common lisps uses macros (rewrite code). > F-Expr are slightly more powerful but cannot be compiled > - common lisp as big community - picolisp community is pico > - many libraries for CL - in picolisp programmers usually re-use libraries > from other languages > - picolisp strongly follows unix philosophy - CL does not follow unix > philosophy ( http://chrisdone.com/posts/haskell-lisp-philosophy-difference ) > - picolisp has integrated graph database, persistent database objects are > first-class citizens, integrated prolog engine > - picolisp has no multithreading, instead picolisp has integrated IPC to work > with multiple processes and makes asynchronious programming easy - common > lisp has ... ??? > > Please correct my errors. Wow! Perfect! I see no error(s) ... Instead of answering in quora, I suggest we simply put a link there, pointing to this thread. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
RE: PicoLisp on quora.com
> > Uh, oh, this is really tough. > > Just one smart paragraph. This is a guess: the original asker is more familiar with Common Lisp than picolisp. So, a fair answer would be to describe picolisp in terms that CL users are familiar with. Sorry, I'm not qualified to do that myself. But, here are some notes for others: * picolisp is a VM and the mechanics of that VM aren't hidden from the programmer--everthing is implementation specific. * the picolisp implementations are first class citizens, the picolisp language is second class. * A CL specification exists and it is important. (Is there a picolisp specification? Since I don't know, it probably isn't important...) * one implementation is canonical: amd64 * picolisp was made mostly by one person. * picolisp is small, light, and elegant. PԔ � &j)mX�����zV�u�.n7�
Re: PicoLisp on quora.com
Something that would be of more interest would be a comparison of Scheme and PicoLisp. I think even people who who use CL a lot are kind of embarrassed about a lot of the design choices, and recognize that it was meant to be a practical hodgepodge of features from different lisps, rather than a focused design philosophy. Of course, a lot of the same points below would still apply. But with Schemes the whole issue of composability vs monolithism as mentioned in the chrisdone.com article pretty much melts away. SRFI-1 has all the "haskell" functions mentioned in the article. I work with Guile Scheme, and to me the biggest differences between Guile and PicoLisp are: (1) Guile code is compiled (though often at runtime); and (2) Guile is designed from the ground up to interface well with system libraries (you can even embed Guile inside a C program fairly easily). Of course, scheme is really just a language specification and design philosophy, and implementations get even more fragmented than CL does, because Scheme is more minimalistic and extensible than CL. So, perhaps a comparison of Scheme and PicoLisp would be even more challenging. On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 17:07 +0200, andr...@itship.ch wrote: > Disclaimer: I don't really know Common Lisp. > > Just a try, use it as inspiration not as answer, would need re- > wording to be used as quora answer: > > - they're about the same age, both inspired by Maclisp, both used > commercially since the 1980s > - picolisp is a language and runtime VM - CL is a language > specification with multiple implementations > - CL libraries may often be platform-dependent (or depend on a > certain compiler to be used) - code in picolisp has much less such > dependencies > - picolisp has no compiler, purely interpreted by design - CL is > usually compiled, interpreted only during development > - picolisp directly evals s-expressions, the structure of the memory > representation is the same as the structure of the source code - > common lisp compiles to XX (?) > - only 3 strong types: list, number (arterially big signed integers), > symbol (with property list), all other types are dynamically duck- > typed - common lisp has many types (?) > - picolisp uses F-Expressions (FEXPRs, Functions which decide > themselves if/when/how to evaluate arguments) - common lisps uses > macros (rewrite code). F-Expr are slightly more powerful but cannot > be compiled > - common lisp as big community - picolisp community is pico > - many libraries for CL - in picolisp programmers usually re-use > libraries from other languages > - picolisp strongly follows unix philosophy - CL does not follow unix > philosophy ( http://chrisdone.com/posts/haskell-lisp-philosophy-diffe > rence ) > - picolisp has integrated graph database, persistent database objects > are first-class citizens, integrated prolog engine > - picolisp has no multithreading, instead picolisp has integrated IPC > to work with multiple processes and makes asynchronious programming > easy - common lisp has ... ??? > > Please correct my errors. > > Most points of the FAQ should probably go into the quora answer: http > ://www.software-lab.de/doc/faq.html > See also: http://picolisp.wikidot.com/ > > > > - Original Message ----- > From: Mike Pechkin [mailto:mike.pech...@gmail.com] > To: picolisp@software-lab.de > Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:58:05 +0300 > Subject: Re: PicoLisp on quora.com > > > > > > > Uh, oh, this is really tough. > > > Just one smart paragraph. > > (mike) > > > -- Christopher Howard Enterprise Solutions Manager Alaska Satellite Internet 3239 La Ree Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 1-888-396-5623 https://alaskasatelliteinternet.com personal web site: https://qlfiles.net https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: PicoLisp on quora.com
Disclaimer: I don't really know Common Lisp. Just a try, use it as inspiration not as answer, would need re-wording to be used as quora answer: - they're about the same age, both inspired by Maclisp, both used commercially since the 1980s - picolisp is a language and runtime VM - CL is a language specification with multiple implementations - CL libraries may often be platform-dependent (or depend on a certain compiler to be used) - code in picolisp has much less such dependencies - picolisp has no compiler, purely interpreted by design - CL is usually compiled, interpreted only during development - picolisp directly evals s-expressions, the structure of the memory representation is the same as the structure of the source code - common lisp compiles to XX (?) - only 3 strong types: list, number (arterially big signed integers), symbol (with property list), all other types are dynamically duck-typed - common lisp has many types (?) - picolisp uses F-Expressions (FEXPRs, Functions which decide themselves if/when/how to evaluate arguments) - common lisps uses macros (rewrite code). F-Expr are slightly more powerful but cannot be compiled - common lisp as big community - picolisp community is pico - many libraries for CL - in picolisp programmers usually re-use libraries from other languages - picolisp strongly follows unix philosophy - CL does not follow unix philosophy ( http://chrisdone.com/posts/haskell-lisp-philosophy-difference ) - picolisp has integrated graph database, persistent database objects are first-class citizens, integrated prolog engine - picolisp has no multithreading, instead picolisp has integrated IPC to work with multiple processes and makes asynchronious programming easy - common lisp has ... ??? Please correct my errors. Most points of the FAQ should probably go into the quora answer: http://wwwsoftware-lab.de/doc/faq.html See also: http://picolisp.wikidot.com/ - Original Message - From: Mike Pechkin [mailto:mike.pech...@gmail.com] To: picolisp@software-lab.de Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:58:05 +0300 Subject: Re: PicoLisp on quora.com > > > Uh, oh, this is really tough. Just one smart paragraph. (mike)
Re: PicoLisp on quora.com
> > > Uh, oh, this is really tough. Just one smart paragraph. (mike)
Re: PicoLisp on quora.com
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:21:03PM +0300, Mike Pechkin wrote: > Can somebody answer to this ? > https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-difference-between-PicoLisp-and-Common-Lisp Uh, oh, this is really tough. I would say that almost everything is different. Comparing Forth with Java is easier. -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
PicoLisp on quora.com
hi all, Can somebody answer to this ? https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-difference-between-PicoLisp-and-Common-Lisp (mike)