can it execute the y-combinator?
It doesn't appear to, but you could always add this to the included common.lisp file:
(define Y (lambda (f) (lambda args ((f (Y f)) . args))))A Lisp in 99LOC
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#12Holy cow this is —structurally, not just expression— some of the worst C code I have ever seen, with the abuse of the 'double' type, 'T' cast that looks like a declaration, endian dependency, and strict aliasing violations galore… does this even work on a modern compiler? o.O
Yeah. It's munged to fit in 99 lines.
That's besides my point, which is why I said "structure, not just expression".
It could've used a struct rather than wedging tags into a double's first byte and still be 99 lines.
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#13Holy cow this is —structurally, not just expression— some of the worst C code I have ever seen, with the abuse of the 'double' type, 'T' cast that looks like a declaration, endian dependency, and strict aliasing violations galore… does this even work on a modern compiler? o.O
Surpringly readable though, despite all that, if you've ever implanted a language in similar constraints.
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#14Lisp in ~100 lines of Python: https://flownet.com/ron/l.py
Or from the venerable:
https://norvig.com/lispy.html
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#15Holy cow this is —structurally, not just expression— some of the worst C code I have ever seen, with the abuse of the 'double' type, 'T' cast that looks like a declaration, endian dependency, and strict aliasing violations galore… does this even work on a modern compiler? o.O
Certainly not the worst I have seen, by far; but yes, not pretty. IMHO “Just for making it shorter“. I would very much prefer 200 lines of actually readable nice code.
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#16can it execute the y-combinator?
I’m pretty sure does not handle TCO… so probably not, unless with a huge stack.
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#17Lisp in ~100 lines of Python: https://flownet.com/ron/l.py
Can’t you just “import lisp”?
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#18It's interesting that he seems to have written this for a pocket computer, because there actually was a pocket computer of similar vintage that had LISP built in -- 1989's Casio AI-1000
https://pockemul.com/index.php/2020/04/27/pockemul-1-10-0-ne...
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#19Holy cow this is —structurally, not just expression— some of the worst C code I have ever seen, with the abuse of the 'double' type, 'T' cast that looks like a declaration, endian dependency, and strict aliasing violations galore… does this even work on a modern compiler? o.O
Certainly not the worst I have seen, by far; but yes, not pretty. IMHO “Just for making it shorter“. I would very much prefer 200 lines of actually readable nice code.
For reading, I enjoyed fe, which was very clear: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36239175
Re: A Lisp in 99LOC
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. It's munged to fit in 99 lines.
That's besides my point, which is why I said "structure, not just expression". It could've used a struct rather than wedging tags into a double's first byte and still be 99 lines.
If that's the trick you object to then you will be sad to hear that Ruby uses it.