Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - jrh

Pages1 2 3
#1
Anything else we might add? /
February 05, 2008, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: "Jeff"Then why use contexts or OOP at all?


Why indeed.  Especially when implemented in a half-assed kludgy way as in C++ or Java.



As for newLISP, I tried using contexts as objects but the performance was dog slow.  Whether FOOP is worth it remains to be seen.  I certainly haven't seen any advantages to it yet.  Every example seems to be more wordy and complex than just using lists and defined functions.



Pre-compiled components in packages or purchased code are OK, especially for gui stuff but that's not really what OOP is all about.



I remain sceptical and especially so as far as lightweight scripting languages like newLISP are concerned.
#2
Anything else we might add? /
February 05, 2008, 03:56:10 PM
Quote from: "Jeff"Advantages: lexical scoping


Lexical scoping is nothing but a computer "science" shibboleth.
#3
newLISP newS /
February 01, 2008, 07:33:26 AM
Quote from: "newBert"I think I'm going to abandon definitely Scheme ;)


I think you should abandon any indefinite Schemes too!  ;-)



I downloaded the Mac PPC version last night.  Everything is working just fine so far on OS X 10.4.11.

-
#4
Anything else we might add? /
January 31, 2008, 07:25:54 PM
Building it in makes the languages syntax more complex.  It is confusing and it also makes building expressions on the fly more difficult.
#5
Anything else we might add? /
January 31, 2008, 08:00:52 AM
Quote from: "Fanda"In my opinion it sometimes makes things harder to read, because you have to remember exactly how many parameters function takes.


Well said.
#6
Anything else we might add? /
October 27, 2007, 09:30:43 AM
Quote from: "Jeff snipilly"Syntax should be as clear as possible.  Some algorithms cannot be expressed simply, because they are not simple algorithms.


They can however be broken up into simpler pieces, it's called modular programming.  Regexes suck because they 1) don't do that and 2) use such terse symbols that one need constantly double escape stuff in order to accomplish the string search.



Hello... we're not using 115 baud teletype machines any longer.  The apparent need for robots to decode regex expressions proves that the Perl and regex coders of complex expressions aren't clever, they are nitwits.
#7
Anything else we might add? /
October 27, 2007, 09:11:25 AM
Quote from: "HPW"
Paste it in RegexBuddy and let explain it:


I would have to get a M$ Windoze system in order to do that.  That seems like going from bad to worse!  ;-)
#8
Anything else we might add? / Re: regex again
October 27, 2007, 08:23:25 AM
Quote from: "rickyboy"
Holy Schneikees!  What is *that* supposed to do?


Only a nitwit would write something like that or spend time figuring out what it did.  I must say that the excessive use of macros in LISP is another example of this syndrome.  I don't care how rich he is, Paul Graham is dead wrong.



Clear, concise, and simple is what I strive for.  Complexity for its own sake is horse shit.
#9
Anything else we might add? /
October 12, 2007, 02:40:46 PM
With awk you can break it up into program steps.  Better yet is to get rid of all those awful special characters in regular expressions.  Here is a discussion of a possible LISPy way out of Perl/regex hell:



http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlternativesToRegularExpressions">//http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlternativesToRegularExpressions
#10
Anything else we might add? / Re: regex again
October 12, 2007, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: "cormullion"
Is there a rough rule of thumb for when converting Perl regexen to newLISP


Yes, don't.  Use awk.  It may be wordy but at least it is comprehensible.
#11
Anything else we might add? /
October 11, 2007, 03:52:58 PM
Subroutines instead of functions, whatever floats your boat, but I'll pass.
#12
Anything else we might add? /
October 11, 2007, 03:52:04 PM
Meh...  must be why I don't like compilers.  Better to push 1 on the stack then another, etc...
#13
Anything else we might add? /
October 11, 2007, 01:38:36 PM
That dolist looks like Fortran (as do all dolists).



(func3 (func2 (func1 s))) is LISP !!!

-
#14
Anything else we might add? /
October 11, 2007, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: "Jeff"Rather than parsing 1 + 1 and requiring the parser to turn into something like PLUS, 1, 1 for the evaluating code


Shouldn't that be 1 1 PLUS ?
#15
Anything else we might add? /
September 21, 2007, 06:26:38 PM
God, what a mongrelized bastard newLISP is!  (this is a good thing.)



With C library support and sockets, a TCL/TK interface, and now Java graphics it's the language of The Day of the Triffids.   Watch out, you will be assimilated!
Pages1 2 3