m00natic

9 ms·

1.
by m00natic 7y ago
How can you provide a REPL language without analyzing it at runtime? Write Lua random syntax in the REPL? Not a great improvement over C++. Not to mention that you'll probably use something like `eval` which is not compilation thus inf
2.
by m00natic 7y ago
Well, dynamic queries by end users is the main goal here. Your static helper functions are completely unusable in that context. Analysing a query and generating code at runtime is easy and idiomatic with uniform syntax (and accompanying lan
3.
by m00natic 7y ago
It's allegorical in the sense that this is general Lisp technique useful not just in this case. The DSL is targeted at (non programmer) end users and supposed to be fired through a REPL. Wouldn't want to make them write C++ with l
4.
by m00natic 7y ago
Implementing a "simple virtual machine" for a particular task is greenspunning[1]. Introducing a JIT library is work, complexity, debug and portability issues. LLVM compiles much slower to native code as the Clasp[2] guys notice c
5.
by m00natic 8y ago
I was more after > The question is whether you want that sort of power in day-to-day programming It's good to use the least powerful mechanism, no doubt. But it seems you are trying to sneak the usual "macros are too powerful f
6.
by m00natic 8y ago
"we should always use the least powerful mechanism that will accomplish our goal" I like this when implementing something for non proficient users. But when it comes to providing tools for (supposedly) advanced users, like program
7.
by m00natic 8y ago
So where's Haskell's advanced object system or the restart/condition system that Common Lisp has? Even its performance is hardly on par with CL for all the flexibility of the latter.
8.
by m00natic 8y ago
I'm yet to see a "modern" (statically-typed) language with random syntax whose macro-like facilities are actually usable by mere mortals. My observation is that in practice lisp programmers, even with the good rule of thumb
9.
by m00natic 8y ago
Static languages are still complete blubs compared to lisps as far as practical metaprogramming goes. And Common Lisp's type system is much less of a blub in that regard.
10.
by m00natic 8y ago
Looking at https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/re... Common Lisp is beating on performance surprising number of static languages too. Despite being more dynamic and flexible than any other l
11.
by m00natic 13y ago
Depends on the machine. With https://github.com/m00natic/vlfi you can explore arbitrarily large file in instant.
12.
by m00natic 14y ago
Thanks for the link!
13.
by m00natic 14y ago
OT Emacs clunkiness/outdated architecture...give me a break, minimal core with lisp interpreter on top giving programmable and extensible platform next to none is still what...30 years ahead of anything called "modern".
14.
Check out FastSearch, sub second real-time fligth search that rivals Google/ITA(vayant.com)
1 points by m00natic 14y ago|0 comments
15.
by m00natic 14y ago
Well, there has been lexical-let in the cl package for quite a while.