Richard A. O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no idea what get/cc might be, unless it is a mistake for
call/cc, but that's Scheme, not Lisp.
Erm... yes. I guess it's the part of call/cc that gets the continuation
before calling it.
Actually, I shouldn't be talking about stuff that was
Anton van Straaten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008.01.17 00:58:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
scribbled 0.9K characters:
Achim Schneider writes:
Lisp is actually not really meant to be compiled, but
interpreted.
...
Would you mind stopping to spread dubious
It's about as accurate as saying Television is actually not really
meant to be color, but black and white.
Funny, but that is actually correct, since both NTSC and PAL did a lot
of tricks to carry color information using the same infrastructure as
black and white TVs :) Of course that will
Achim Schneider continues to comment the Lisp history:
In fact, it wasn't even meant to be a programming language, just a
calculus.
There is comprehensive German article (in English), by Herbert Stoyan,
on this historical issue:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[McCarthy's] aim was to use the mathematical
formalismus as languages and not as calculi. This is the root of
the historical fact that he never took the Lambda-Calculus conversion
rules as a sound basis for LISP implementation.
So, I believe it is not so briliant an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I heard it somewhere trustworthy. Instinctively, I would guess
somewhere into the direction of Graham, but I'm not sure at all.
On the other hand, you can be absolutely sure that I didn't get it off
the next warez-board nor from Bill Gates.
The Story, afaicr,
Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know nothing about theoretical computer science, but I was wondering
if it possible to forget about types, and just keep the concept of
data constructors, and have an analyzer determine correctness of the
code and staticness of the data?
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, yes, Stalin manages to specialize a - a functions to Int - Int
to make numerical code as fast or faster than C, but so does GHC.
That is, seen formally, quite fuzzy. I'm going to be beaten for it.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing
Thank you for explaining.
I was wondering if the same syntax could be used somehow (not in
Haskell, in some theoretical language), I mean use an annotation to tell
the compiler that a type-tag should be determined at compile time and
not at runtime, otherwise - error
So eg
// Runtime tag, aka
Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you for explaining.
I was wondering if the same syntax could be used somehow (not in
Haskell, in some theoretical language), I mean use an annotation to
tell the compiler that a type-tag should be determined at compile
time and not at
Achim Schneider writes:
Lisp is actually not really meant to be compiled, but interpreted. The
nice thing is that it doesn't need more than a handful of primitives, a
list parser and heap manager/garbage collector and evaluator, which all
can be implemented in under 1000 lines of C. Things get
On Jan 16, 2008, at 18:58 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider writes:
Lisp is actually not really meant to be compiled, but interpreted.
The
Would you mind stopping to spread dubious truths?
Certainly, Lisp processors started with simple eval/apply
interpreters,
since they were
On 2008.01.17 00:58:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled 0.9K characters:
Achim Schneider writes:
Lisp is actually not really meant to be compiled, but interpreted. The
nice thing is that it doesn't need more than a handful of primitives, a
list parser and heap manager/garbage collector and
On 17 Jan 2008, at 10:56 am, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
You're talking about O(big)... But wasn't the C language in some way
succesful because on the hardware at that time other much nicer
languages (e.g. LISP) were just way too slow? Or was this just O(n)
times slower?
No. C was designed as a
On 17 Jan 2008, at 12:31 pm, Achim Schneider wrote:
Lisp is actually not really meant to be compiled, but interpreted.
The classic Lisp is Lisp 1.5.
The Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual, published in I think 1961,
contains Appendix D: The Lisp Compiler.
If I'm reading appendix G correctly, the
ghc --ddump-simpl and assure that your values get unboxed...
I was not really talking about boxed/unboxed values, that's another
issue I think.
What I was talking about is more related to the work of Neil Mitchell
and Colin Runciman in their static checker for pattern matching
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008.01.17 00:58:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled 0.9K characters:
Achim Schneider writes:
Lisp is actually not really meant to be compiled, but interpreted.
...
Would you mind stopping to spread dubious truths?
...
I don't think it's a dubious truth.
17 matches
Mail list logo
