CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp

Post by bmh100 » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #76

bmh100 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People complain about the lack of run-time support for concurrency and IO in the specification. I don't think they realize, coming from other languages, that Common Lisp doesn't need it. The specification defines the language and a minimal ball of mud for doing practical work with it. Things like concurrency, threading, and IO are implementation issues and have been solved by high-quality open-source implementation…

> "car" and "cdr" are not intuitive to me. Why not use "first" and "rest" or "head" and "tail" for CL21 instead? Nothing about programming is intuitive. The problem here is that you've adopted ideas and notions from another language and are bringing that baggage to Common Lisp. If you learned Common Lisp first you might not have this very issue you describe. For historical reasons, "car" and "cdr" are the names of sp…

Post by phabian » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:37 PM UTC

bmh100 wrote: post #71

Immortalin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand the reasons why people prefer to target the CLR/JVM/LLVM/BEAM/Name-your-favorite-vm but I yearn for more compiled-to-native-languages such as Golang. As attractive as partially-compiled/interpretated languages are, I simply do not enjoy creating programs in a language that can be decompiled to source so easily. We need more languages that have decent performance instead of having to drop down to poin…

By functional Fortran, do you mean like a "functional programming language" or "more productive Fortran"? As one who has developed in Fortran before, I would also like to see enhanced functional capabilities, as well as a more productive way to write code. I have spent so much time on declaring variables and function arguments over and over across subroutines that it becomes quite a pain. To avoid writing many subrou…

Post by agentultra » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #80

agentultra wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "car" and "cdr" are not intuitive to me. Why not use "first" and "rest" or "head" and "tail" for CL21 instead? Nothing about programming is intuitive. The problem here is that you've adopted ideas and notions from another language and are bringing that baggage to Common Lisp. If you learned Common Lisp first you might not have this very issue you describe. For historical reasons, "car" and "cdr" are the names of sp…

> Where atom can be a value or a another cons cell. In this visualization it's useful to think of CAR as referring to the "atom on the left" and CDR referring to the "atom on the right." Then names like "left" and "right" rather than mnemonics for "contents of address part of register" and "contents of decrement part of register" would make sense.

    char *(*c[10])(int **p);

Post by agentultra » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

bmh100 wrote: post #81

agentultra wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "car" and "cdr" are not intuitive to me. Why not use "first" and "rest" or "head" and "tail" for CL21 instead? Nothing about programming is intuitive. The problem here is that you've adopted ideas and notions from another language and are bringing that baggage to Common Lisp. If you learned Common Lisp first you might not have this very issue you describe. For historical reasons, "car" and "cdr" are the names of sp…

> Nothing about programming is intuitive. > The problem here is that you've adopted ideas and notions from another language and are bringing that baggage to Common Lisp. If you learned Common Lisp first you might not have this very issue you describe. Indeed, very little about programming is intuitive to a non-programmer. You're also right about me bringing in baggage from other languages. Those are valid points, yet…

    (cdr '(1 . 2))

    (cddr '(1 . (2 . 3)))

    (cdr (cdr '(1 . (2 . 3))))

    (1 2 3 4)

    (cdr '(1 2 3 4))

    (1 2 3 4)

    (1 . (2 . (3 . (4 . nil))))

Post by chongli » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

Flow wrote: post #57

chongli wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One word: lenses.

And how would that look for this particular example?

    >>> ((((5,4,3,2,1),6),7),8,9) & view (_1 . _1 . _2)
    6
    >>> ((((5,4,3,2,1),6),7),8,9) & (_1 . _1 . _2) .~ 4
    ((((5,4,3,2,1),4),7),8,9)
    >>> let foo = ((((5,4,3,2,1),6),7),8,9)
    >>> foo & view (_1 . _1 . _2)
    6
    >>> let six = _1 . _1 . _2
    >>> foo & view six
    6
    >>> foo & six .~ 4
    ((((5,4,3,2,1),4),7),8,9)
    >>> foo & six .~ "abc"
    ((((5,4,3,2,1),"abc"),7),8,9)