7 ms·

> Because some random guys implement their own language in C? Why do we have Python, Ruby, Rebol? There was already PERL or AWK or ... Somebody decided to write

> Because some random guys implement their own language in C? Why do we have Python, Ruby, Rebol? There was already PERL or AWK or ... Somebody decided to write their own scripting language. So what? When a Python advocate wants to do some data processing, do they first write their own Python implementation in C? No. When a Ruby advocate wants to make a Rails website, do they first write their own implementation of Ruby in C? No. Several fine implementations of lisp already exist that compile down to machine code and, if the lisp community is to believed, have performance "close to C". So why does a lisp advocate feel the need to re-write lisp in C for a project that didn't actually need it? The lisp community would have us all believe that lisp is the "programmable programming language", and all the other rhetoric about how every other language has just stolen ideas from lisp, etc., etc.. They all truly seem to believe that lisp is something special. That's why I find it laughable that someone like Kaz Kylheku, a 15 year veteran of comp.lang.lisp, decided not to implement TXR by using a pre-existing lisp implementation.

lispm 12y ago
> When a Python advocate wants to do some data processing, do they first write their own Python implementation in C? They write it in C. Checkout the Python world sometimes. * CrossTwine Linker - a combination of CPython and an add-on library offering improved performance (currently proprietary) * unladen-swallow - "an optimization branch of CPython, intended to be fully compatible and significantly faster", originally considered for merging with CPython * IronPython - Python in C# for the Common Language Runtime (CLR/.NET) and the FePy project's IronPython Community Edition * 2c-python - a static Python-to-C compiler, apparently translating CPython bytecode to C * Nuitka - a Python-to-C++ compiler using libpython at run-time, attempting some compile-time and run-time optimisations. Interacts with CPython runtime. * Shed Skin - a Python-to-C++ compiler, restricted to an implicitly statically typed subset of the language for which it can automatically infer efficient types through whole program analysis * unPython - a Python to C compiler using type annotations * Nimrod - statically typed, compiles to C, features parameterised types, macros, and so on and so on... > So why does a lisp advocate feel the need to re-write lisp in C for a project that didn't actually need it? The lisp community would have us all believe that lisp is the "programmable programming language" Why don't you understand the difference between 'a lisp advocate' and 'the lisp community'? > nd all the other rhetoric about how every other language has just stolen ideas from lisp, etc., etc.. Nonsense. > That's why I find it laughable that someone like Kaz Kylheku, a 15 year veteran of comp.lang.lisp, decided not to implement TXR by using a pre-existing lisp implementation. I find it laughable that you find it laughable...
- aurelius 12y ago
  Every single Python project you stated simply proves my point. They are Python compilers of some sort. TXR, on the other hand, is a data processing language implemented in its own lisp which is implemented in C. In other words, TXR is an application of lisp, not just a compiler or interpreter like those Python projects you listed. So, all your examples are irrelevant. TXR didn't need its own dialect of lisp. So, the question remains: why didn't Kaz use SBCL or CLISP? They're good enough for c.l.l. kooks like him to recommend to everyone else, but why're they not good enough for him to use?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - lispm 12y ago
    It's a tool with some embedded kind of Lisp dialect. There are zillions of it. > why didn't Kaz use SBCL or CLISP? Why should he? He can do whatever he want. I personally don't care at all about what he does. Why are you? Kind of strange obsession with comp.lang.lisp. Are you one of the trolls posting there? > They're good enough for c.l.l. kooks like him to recommend to everyone else, but why're they not good enough for him to use? Probably he did it to annoy real programmers like you?
    - aurelius 12y ago
      > > why didn't Kaz use SBCL or CLISP? > Why should he? Kaz invested a bunch of time implementing a whole new backquote implementation for CLISP, but it's still not good enough for him to use CLISP to implement TXR? It doesn't make any sense! Any right-thinking programmer should care about inconsistencies such as this. If I'm evaluating a programming language, and I see someone in its community writing their own language implementation to support an application that could've easily been written using one of the standard language implementations, then it looks to me like the standard implementations aren't mature enough or trustworthy enough for me to use for my application. Not only that, but it suggests that maybe this particular language isn't as good as its advocates claim, especially if I have to drop back down to C in order to meet certain requirements (e.g., portability, speed, wider understanding, etc.). But any right-thinking programmer already knows that lisp is not worth wasting any time on. It's dead, and people like Kaz, and projects like TXR, are going to make sure it stays that way.

lispm 12y ago

> When a Python advocate wants to do some data processing, do they first write their own Python implementation in C? They write it in C. Checkout the Python world sometimes. * CrossTwine Linker - a combination of CPython and an add-on library offering improved performance (currently proprietary) * unladen-swallow - "an optimization branch of CPython, intended to be fully compatible and significantly faster", originally considered for merging with CPython * IronPython - Python in C# for the Common Language Runtime (CLR/.NET) and the FePy project's IronPython Community Edition * 2c-python - a static Python-to-C compiler, apparently translating CPython bytecode to C * Nuitka - a Python-to-C++ compiler using libpython at run-time, attempting some compile-time and run-time optimisations. Interacts with CPython runtime. * Shed Skin - a Python-to-C++ compiler, restricted to an implicitly statically typed subset of the language for which it can automatically infer efficient types through whole program analysis * unPython - a Python to C compiler using type annotations * Nimrod - statically typed, compiles to C, features parameterised types, macros, and so on and so on... > So why does a lisp advocate feel the need to re-write lisp in C for a project that didn't actually need it? The lisp community would have us all believe that lisp is the "programmable programming language" Why don't you understand the difference between 'a lisp advocate' and 'the lisp community'? > nd all the other rhetoric about how every other language has just stolen ideas from lisp, etc., etc.. Nonsense. > That's why I find it laughable that someone like Kaz Kylheku, a 15 year veteran of comp.lang.lisp, decided not to implement TXR by using a pre-existing lisp implementation. I find it laughable that you find it laughable...

aurelius 12y ago
Every single Python project you stated simply proves my point. They are Python compilers of some sort. TXR, on the other hand, is a data processing language implemented in its own lisp which is implemented in C. In other words, TXR is an application of lisp, not just a compiler or interpreter like those Python projects you listed. So, all your examples are irrelevant. TXR didn't need its own dialect of lisp. So, the question remains: why didn't Kaz use SBCL or CLISP? They're good enough for c.l.l. kooks like him to recommend to everyone else, but why're they not good enough for him to use?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lispm 12y ago
  It's a tool with some embedded kind of Lisp dialect. There are zillions of it. > why didn't Kaz use SBCL or CLISP? Why should he? He can do whatever he want. I personally don't care at all about what he does. Why are you? Kind of strange obsession with comp.lang.lisp. Are you one of the trolls posting there? > They're good enough for c.l.l. kooks like him to recommend to everyone else, but why're they not good enough for him to use? Probably he did it to annoy real programmers like you?
  - aurelius 12y ago
    > > why didn't Kaz use SBCL or CLISP? > Why should he? Kaz invested a bunch of time implementing a whole new backquote implementation for CLISP, but it's still not good enough for him to use CLISP to implement TXR? It doesn't make any sense! Any right-thinking programmer should care about inconsistencies such as this. If I'm evaluating a programming language, and I see someone in its community writing their own language implementation to support an application that could've easily been written using one of the standard language implementations, then it looks to me like the standard implementations aren't mature enough or trustworthy enough for me to use for my application. Not only that, but it suggests that maybe this particular language isn't as good as its advocates claim, especially if I have to drop back down to C in order to meet certain requirements (e.g., portability, speed, wider understanding, etc.). But any right-thinking programmer already knows that lisp is not worth wasting any time on. It's dead, and people like Kaz, and projects like TXR, are going to make sure it stays that way.