41–48 of 48 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd guess one is cffi: https://www.quicklisp.org/beta/UNOFFICIAL/docs/cffi/doc/Intr... Maybe with the help of cl-autowrap: https://github.com/rpav/cl-autowrap/blob/master/README.md There are others... : http://www.cliki.net/FFI
Interestingly there is a CFFI module in Python too. Maybe they got the idea from Lisp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What are the hidden treasures of the genuine Common Lisp we are ignorant of? Actually Common Lisp is in many places a very well documented and designed language. Other languages have copied its numeric tower, its macros, its object-system, its error handling, ... >In my humble opinion Common Lisp is the classic example of the kitchen sink syndrome, where many pieces taken from various dialects were put together in…
I remember reading the Symbolics manuals from bitsavers and how I have been impressed by clarity and unity of the language, and how they incorporated CL into Zetalisp just by moving their own stuff into packages. At least in the documentation everything looks wonderful. Compared to Symbolics CL looks like a mess at least from reading the books.
Which books, may I know?
The Common Lisp Hyperspec is one of the best reference manuals for a programming language, ever. But it is not a tutorial nor a how-to guide!
Try "Pratical Common Lisp". Or "Land of Lisp" if you want to have lots of fun.
simple but refined, guaranteed to blow your mind...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not make sense to me. Common Lisp provided lots of improvements over Zetalisp.
The major goal of Common Lisp was commonality, and that means incorporating forms from various dialects into one and to maintain compatibility, like you said. That goal has been accomplished. I think that carefully designed dialects with emphasis on right principles and attention to details leading by people like David Moon would be aesthetically better than a good kitchen sink. It is no coincidence that Common Lisp…
That's misleading. The 'various dialects' were mostly three very similar successor implementations of Maclisp.
Common Lisp was designed as a single successor language to Maclisp. There were successors of Maclisp for different computers under development: NIL (on a super computer and the VAX), Spice Lisp (for a new breed of workstations), Lisp Machine Lisp (developed for MIT's Lisp Machine systems), ... We are talking about new implementations of basically very similar languages, with Lisp Machine Lisp as the major influence.
DARPA wanted that these and future successor implementations stayed compatible. Not every Lisp application for the military should come with its own incompatible implementation of the language. NIL then looked a lot like CL. Spice Lisp evolved into CMUCL. Lisp Machines then got a CL implementation integrated with Lisp Machine Lisp.
From CLTL:
> Common Lisp originated in an attempt to focus the work of several implementation groups, each of which was constructing successor implementations of MacLisp for different computers.
Common Lisp was not designed to be compatible with other Lisp dialects like Interlisp, Scheme, Standard Lisp, ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The major goal of Common Lisp was commonality, and that means incorporating forms from various dialects into one and to maintain compatibility, like you said. That goal has been accomplished. I think that carefully designed dialects with emphasis on right principles and attention to details leading by people like David Moon would be aesthetically better than a good kitchen sink. It is no coincidence that Common Lisp…
> The major goal of Common Lisp was commonality, and that means incorporating forms from various dialects into one and to maintain compatibility, like you said. That goal has been accomplished. That's misleading. The 'various dialects' were mostly three very similar successor implementations of Maclisp. Common Lisp was designed as a single successor language to Maclisp. There were successors of Maclisp for different…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading the Symbolics manuals from bitsavers and how I have been impressed by clarity and unity of the language, and how they incorporated CL into Zetalisp just by moving their own stuff into packages. At least in the documentation everything looks wonderful. Compared to Symbolics CL looks like a mess at least from reading the books.
> Compared to Symbolics CL looks like a mess at least from reading the books. Which books, may I know? The Common Lisp Hyperspec is one of the best reference manuals for a programming language, ever. But it is not a tutorial nor a how-to guide! Try "Pratical Common Lisp". Or "Land of Lisp" if you want to have lots of fun. simple but refined, guaranteed to blow your mind... https://youtu.be/HM1Zb3xmvMc
Symbolics Common Lisp - Language Concepts (volume 2A)
It also covers parts of Zetalisp.
I am also big fan of pg's On Lisp and ANSI Common Lisp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The major goal of Common Lisp was commonality, and that means incorporating forms from various dialects into one and to maintain compatibility, like you said. That goal has been accomplished. I think that carefully designed dialects with emphasis on right principles and attention to details leading by people like David Moon would be aesthetically better than a good kitchen sink. It is no coincidence that Common Lisp…
> The major goal of Common Lisp was commonality, and that means incorporating forms from various dialects into one and to maintain compatibility, like you said. That goal has been accomplished. That's misleading. The 'various dialects' were mostly three very similar successor implementations of Maclisp. Common Lisp was designed as a single successor language to Maclisp. There were successors of Maclisp for different…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly there is a CFFI module in Python too. Maybe they got the idea from Lisp.
Um, i'm not sure. Python was designed with C compatibility as a main feature since the start, anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, i'm not sure. Python was designed with C compatibility as a main feature since the start, anyways.
The cffi module in python came from pypy (which broke the cpython c api) - but both the python ctypes module and cffi use libffi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libffi