Does it have tail recursion?
Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
11–20 of 48 posts
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#12This is amazing. How long did it take you to implement it, i.e. reach that high level of Ansi test conformance? Have you been able to reuse concepts e.g. from ABCL?
Yeah, pity that the early history seems to have been lost.
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#13Does it have tail recursion?
I'm pretty sure it does. I would even think that it tries to optimize such, as a recent check-in comment claims improvements of TCO.
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#14Does it have tail recursion?
If nothing else dotnet has TCO IL operations (C# doesn't compile down to them last I knew but F# does) so in theory shouldn't be hard to add.
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#15Dotcl sounds like a lisp macro that interprets TCL. :D
Given how simple TCL is you would probably write a parser in a day...
JimTCL (jimsh interpreter) is not 100% TCL compatible and I just used 'source qcomplex.tcl' from it's big brother TCL and now I can do complex number operations in the spot. With just a simple file, no libraries, no nothing.
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#16Kudos, this is what I was looking for. Time to add dynamic "scripting" to my .net projects.
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#17I have recently blogged that AI and Common Lisp don't mix, but I've come to the opposite conclusion lately. AI evens the playing field between large teams and single developers. Now all the lone wolves in cl will be able to do large things, like a .net implementation or a yaml parser. I heard one guy say he was using AI to write a c complete in common lisp. I wonder if AI was used here or not.
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#18Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#19I have recently blogged that AI and Common Lisp don't mix, but I've come to the opposite conclusion lately. AI evens the playing field between large teams and single developers. Now all the lone wolves in cl will be able to do large things, like a .net implementation or a yaml parser. I heard one guy say he was using AI to write a c complete in common lisp. I wonder if AI was used here or not.
Had it not been for UNIX taking over the Lisp workstations market, followed by the first AI winter, people would be using LispTorch today, and there wouldn't have been such a waste coming up with endless ways to speed up Python, and efforts like Mojo wouldn't even be a thing.
Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET
#20Does it have tail recursion?
If nothing else dotnet has TCO IL operations (C# doesn't compile down to them last I knew but F# does) so in theory shouldn't be hard to add.
MSIL was designed to support plenty of languages, including C and C++, which WebAssembly advocates tend to never mention.
As such there are plenty of MSIL and CLR capabilities not yet fully exposed in C#.
One of the improvements in C# during the last decade, has been exposing low level coding abilities into C#, which is nothing more than taking advantage of those primitives originally designed for C and C++ support.
Likewise, .NET also had support back in 2001 for FP languages, thus TCO.
https://news.microsoft.com/source/2001/10/22/massive-industr...