61–70 of 164 posts
I find it very hard to work with a mixture of brackets and parentheses. Does anyone else prefer an all-parentheses syntax for reading and typing?
Well, in most cases `[]` is used just like you'd use a quoted list `'()`. Clojure vectors are nice for the performance they give. Having maps with `{}` syntax is also nice if you ask me. Makes reading a little bit faster.
What difference does it make when representing code?
> And it's small. Currently the interpreter, JIT, GC, and stdlib clock in at about 10.3MB once compiled down to an executable. Oh how the definition of "small" has changed. I actually would like to know how they managed to make something like this so big . To compare, LuaJIT is about 400 KB, and that includes the Lua standard library, a JIT almost certainly more advanced than Pixie's current one, an incremental GC, a…
Well, for comparison "Hello World" in Common Lisp, using SBCL on x64 Linux creates a ~70 Mb binary, but nobody would ever claim it's small :-) Unfortunately, for an arbitrary CL program it's impossible to tell for sure how much of the CL compiler and standard library it will need at run time, so SBCL takes the easy route and just includes everything. Some of the commercial Lisp compilers are a lot smarter at strippin…
> And it's small. Currently the interpreter, JIT, GC, and stdlib clock in at about 10.3MB once compiled down to an executable. Oh how the definition of "small" has changed. I actually would like to know how they managed to make something like this so big . To compare, LuaJIT is about 400 KB, and that includes the Lua standard library, a JIT almost certainly more advanced than Pixie's current one, an incremental GC, a…
I wonder if it's a stripped binary.
A native compiler for Clojure would be an interesting project, but completely new languages competing on speed or size are going to have a really tough time beating the existing Common Lisp implementations, not to mention the CL library ecosystem.
Not to say the CL library world is very big compared to Python or Javascript, but it has most of the important bases covered, and it's certainly bigger than a brand new language like Pixie.
http://www.red-lang.org for those who doesn't necessarily need Lisp, but appreciates homoiconicity and other nice things. > This executable is a full blown native interpreter with a JIT, GC, etc. > A small, fast, native lisp I have issue with the use of the word 'native' here. For me 'native' mostly means AOT compiling.
Alas, this ambitious project appears to be not currently under active development. My largely uninformed armchair opinion as to why, is that the author is very performance-driven, and in the end it's very difficult to beat the JVM performance-wise. Lesson: if you want high-perf Clojure, you already have it on the JVM. Personally, I think there's room for a simple small native Clojure implementation where performance…
I'm generally in demand of small, quick startup, easy-to-embed languages that aren't Lua (I can't stand Lua; I feel like every time I've had to deal with Lua code was far more painful than reasonably possible). There's mruby and maybe a couple others. I was hoping Pixie might be another contender in that space, but it doesn't seem to be after all (or if it is, it's very poorly documented to that effect). I've been ti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PicoLisp is very small and extremely powerful at the same time. It has a built in Prolog...
Do you use it though? I really like the concepts, but the speed could be better (I know Alexander talked about this), and docs could be more beginner friendly. It's a small expert community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, for comparison "Hello World" in Common Lisp, using SBCL on x64 Linux creates a ~70 Mb binary, but nobody would ever claim it's small :-) Unfortunately, for an arbitrary CL program it's impossible to tell for sure how much of the CL compiler and standard library it will need at run time, so SBCL takes the easy route and just includes everything. Some of the commercial Lisp compilers are a lot smarter at strippin…
SBCL does not create binaries per se, but dumps the program image. While it practically is a binary, it's not equal to an executable that a conventional compiler/linker produces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To compare, LuaJIT is about 400 KB, and that includes the Lua standard library, a JIT almost certainly more advanced than Pixie's current one, an incremental GC, and a C FFI. Back in the day, Smalltalk was criticized as bloated because one ended up with stripped binary+image of about 2MB. Someone around that time got SqueakVM+image down to just under 400k. There were specialized Smalltalks in company R&D that got the…
Don't forget, even 2 MB was still a somewhat inconvenient size when floppy disks were only at 1.44 MB capacity.