David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are possible in lisp,
I suspect that their utility is minimal.
Ever heard
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:53:47AM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:53:47AM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and
David F. Place wrote:
I don't deny that all of the things you mentioned are wonderful
indeed. I just wonder if they really could only be done in lisp or
even most conveniently.
Obviously, if you can do it in Lisp, you can do it in any
Turing-complete language; in the worst case, you
On Sep 21, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
Ever heard of the loop macro?
Yes, the loop macro is a good example for the argument against lisp.
Lisp has features to support iteration that date back to the time
before it was understood that tail recursion is equivalent to
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sep 21, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
Ever heard of the loop macro?
Yes, the loop macro is a good example for the argument against lisp.
Lisp has features to support iteration that date back to the time
before it was understood that
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:12:16PM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:53:47AM +0100, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:
David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
On Sep 20, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:
That, in a nutshell, is Lisp's key strength. It uses the same
structure for code as for data, which makes it very easy to add new
language features.
I assume that you refer to `eval' and the fact it operates on conses
and symbols. Beyond
David F. Place wrote:
That, in a nutshell, is Lisp's key strength. It uses the same
structure for code as for data, which makes it very easy to add new
language features.
I assume that you refer to `eval' and the fact it operates on conses
and symbols. Beyond the extremely
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are possible in lisp,
I suspect that their utility is minimal.
On Sep 20, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Glynn Clements
. . .
I was hoping that the examples I requested would be examples of
particular control constructs or extensions to the language's syntax
and semantics. Though I admit that such things are possible in lisp,
I suspect that their utility is minimal.
As to utility, quite the contrary,
I don't deny that all of the things you mentioned are wonderful
indeed. I just wonder if they really could only be done in lisp or
even most conveniently. Many years ago I read a paper by Phil Wadler
about logic programing using a functional language. I think it was
called something
Bill Wood wrote:
As to utility, quite the contrary, I think. Offhand I can think of the
screamer package for Common Lisp, which provides non-deterministic
mechanisms for use in backtracking applications. For a while in the
80's there was practically a cottage industry implementing various
Am Freitag, 16. September 2005 16:46 schrieben Sie:
. . .
In Haskell, code is data too because code in the sense of imperative
actions is described by IO values. You cannot analyse them. But you can
use your do expressions etc. to construct action descriptions with a more
general
Am Freitag, 16. September 2005 18:40 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Bearing this in mind, and hoping you can see where I'm coming from,
I think my question is: shouldn't you guys be using Lisp?
Lisp is impure, weakly typed and has way too many parentheses. Why
would
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:56:10PM -0400, David F. Place wrote:
On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:
Haskell's safety and consistency can get in the way, while Lisp's
freedom can be quite unsafe and inconsistent.
and lazy evaluation eliminates 99% of the need for macros in
On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Glynn Clements wrote:
Haskell's safety and
consistency can get in the way, while Lisp's freedom can be quite
unsafe and inconsistent.
I have many years of experience designing and implementing commercial
software in lisp and I strongly agree with the second
17 matches
Mail list logo
