@TimSweeneyEpic OK, a lot better.https://gist.github.com/anonymous/adbe982a1c8ca23ec40a57e3e1801455 …
-
Show this thread
-
Also had forgotten how easy it is to write a variadic parallel-stepping version of map in Lisp.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @pervognsen @TimSweeneyEpic
Is it feasible to do a complete game/os/systems project in a Lisp dialect.. Maybe in a way that's unconventional??
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @snk_xed @TimSweeneyEpic
Sure, the software for the Lisp machines was written in Lisp all the way down, although they had hardware/microcode support for garbage collection. My personal interest isn't really in that direction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pervognsen @TimSweeneyEpic
On going down the rabbit hole, I came upon Game Oriented Assembly Lisp.. it had no GC (according to some fringe writings about it in the wild) Too bad it was not for public release. I guess something like this could be reimplimented, but at this point it will have trivial use :/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @snk_xed @TimSweeneyEpic
The Scheme 48 VM is written in a statically type inferrable subset of Scheme called PreScheme, which also requires that all closures can be simplified/inlined away at compile time, so no run-time typing or GC is required. But it's firmly targeted at bootstrapping.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
There are lots of interesting things like that to study if you have a theoretical interest, but I don't see much point in trying to force it into an inappropriate context just because it's Lisp.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @pervognsen @TimSweeneyEpic
Makes sense. To me, the idea(s) of Lisp is more interesting in what it signifies to the development of programming languages in particular; and the development of the "developer environment" in general..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @snk_xed @TimSweeneyEpic
From a modern vantage point, I think the unique selling point of the Lisp family is syntactic abstraction and extension in general and macros in particular. Everything else has been done equally well or better by other languages. But that's my opinion (as a once die-hard Lisper).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I agree and hold out hope for syntactic abstraction in a language with a more mainstream syntax. Strawman: C-like language with x:t to regularize syntax, quasiquoted macro invocations a{b} and a(b){c}, and unquotes <expr>? Then most constructs could be macro-implemented.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.