foobarbaz1234

9 ms·

1.
by foobarbaz1234 12y ago
The traditional theories about parsing and their implementations in tools like yacc, lex, antlr, etc. are not that important in practice. I also used them in some university courses, but after I encountered parsing problems in practice it s
2.
by foobarbaz1234 12y ago
Only accessible in the UK ... :/
3.
by foobarbaz1234 12y ago
Keep also in mind, that it is ultra-fast ( http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r9&hw=pe... ).
4.
by foobarbaz1234 12y ago
Yes, there are always too many ideas to explore and too less time. However if you want to look into a static typed functional language I would go with Haskell as it tries harder to exploit a type system to do useful work (although there are
5.
by foobarbaz1234 12y ago
> It has no syntax (of its own) in that it hijacks s-expression syntax instead. When you want to write Lisp code, you actually write some data structures in the s-expression data format, like when writing some data in JSON or XML. Then a
6.
by foobarbaz1234 12y ago
I am a fan of Scheme but never got that statement. Why do people say Scheme/Lisp has no syntax? I mean clearly it has a _simple_ syntax, i.e. an expression is either an atom (an identifier, a number, a lambda expression, etc.) or a lis
7.
by foobarbaz1234 12y ago
I am not so sure with that. Say, your program is used in a shell script and is invoked badly - you might want to print its usage then. If you exit normally your shell script might break weirdly but if you exit with error it's easier to