101–108 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better if you make it: template constexpr bool is_space(const T & x) { return x == ' ' || x == '\n'; } Debuggable, type safe and same performance as straight C code.
And throw an `inline` in there just to be more likely to end up with something macro-like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. It still can be an atom. Only if it's a pair (i.e. a cons with two cells, not just one) it prints the next.
Even if that were possible (and with this codebase, I don't think it is), I don't see any code in this function that would print the atom in such a case. It seems like it would just print nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that were possible (and with this codebase, I don't think it is), I don't see any code in this function that would print the atom in such a case. It seems like it would just print nothing.
Look harder, it does. There are only cons (pair) and atoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that were possible (and with this codebase, I don't think it is), I don't see any code in this function that would print the atom in such a case. It seems like it would just print nothing.
Look harder, it does. There are only cons (pair) and atoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And throw an `inline` in there just to be more likely to end up with something macro-like.
`constexpr` is implicitly `inline`: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/inline
Then again, inline does not mean what most people think.
Your opinion is welcome. Alain Marty
If you like this, you might like Lisp interpreter written in assembly in a single file. It is one of the best commented code ever written imo. https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp
It seems like arpilisp is inspired by jonesforth[0]. Although not directly stated, the style is similar and the acknowledgements mentions Richard Jones. Anyone interested in implementing simple programming languages might also want to take a look at jonesforth. [0]: https://github.com/nornagon/jonesforth
Yes, jonesforth definitely inspired and influenced me; that's why Jones is first in the Acknowledgements section.
If you're curious, I keep a list of single-file implementations of programming languages (including jonesforth):
If you like this, you might like Lisp interpreter written in assembly in a single file. It is one of the best commented code ever written imo. https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp
Since this is written in assembly is it much faster than a C version since this one can manage its own stack frames and stack variables and such? I always imagined that’s the case and that a lisp implemented fully in assembly would be the trick to a super fast lisp that can complete with Go.
If you were to implement the same Lisp in C then compare, then maybe the assembly variant would be faster for the reasons you mention. Or maybe not.
Also, I modeled arpilisp after the original Lisp. That's barely a first step, and possibly the wrong first step, for anything non-trivial, including applications requiring a "super fast lisp that can compete with Go."
But I didn't write arpilisp for performance. I wrote it to learn and share. Enjoy!