btw, lists (as cons, car, cdr) in the lisp world has always been some kinda cult. Like, if you are showing some code example and you happened to use lisp vector datatype and not cons (lists) and it doesn't really matter in your case, but some lisper will always rise up to bug you, either as innocent curious question or attacking you for not understanding lisp. (just as other idiocies happen in other lang that lispers see but other langs don't see)
it's interesting to me that all other high level langs: Mathematica, perl, python, php, javascript, all don't have linked list as lisp's list. It's also curious that somehow lispers never realises this. I've been having problems with lisp's cons ever since i'm learning Scheme Lisp in 1998 (but mostly the reason is language design at syntax and lack of abstraction level in calling cons, car, cdr stuff, without indexing mechanism). Realizing the algorithmic property and parallel- execution issues of linked list is only recent years.
> btw, lists (as cons, car, cdr) in the lisp world has always been some > kinda cult. Like, if you are showing some code example and you happened > to use lisp vector datatype and not cons (lists) and it doesn't really > matter in your case, but some lisper will always rise up to bug you, > either as innocent curious question or attacking you for not > understanding lisp. (just as other idiocies happen in other lang that > lispers see but other langs don't see)
> it's interesting to me that all other high level langs: Mathematica, > perl, python, php, javascript, all don't have linked list as lisp's > list. It's also curious that somehow lispers never realises this. I've > been having problems with lisp's cons ever since i'm learning Scheme > Lisp in 1998 (but mostly the reason is language design at syntax and > lack of abstraction level in calling cons, car, cdr stuff, without > indexing mechanism). Realizing the algorithmic property and parallel- > execution issues of linked list is only recent years.
You might be interested in Clojure, then. Lists are more abstracted, like in Scheme, and vectors and also dictionaries/maps and sets are first class citizens along side lists. And unlike Scheme, Clojure has good library/host interop support. You can write real-world applications in it without spontaneously combusting.
On May 23, 4:29 am, Deeyana <d.awlb...@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
> You might be interested in Clojure, then. Lists are more abstracted, like > in Scheme, and vectors and also dictionaries/maps and sets are first > class citizens along side lists. And unlike Scheme, Clojure has good > library/host interop support. You can write real-world applications in it > without spontaneously combusting.
Nonsense. Several Scheme systems have excellent FFIs with more than "good library/host interop support".
>> This is more or less what Backus said in his Turing Award lecture about >> FP.
> Stop inflating his ego! Next he'll quote Nobel prize winners...
Well said.... That inspired me to note:
LISP without recursion would be like a jet airplane without wings.... Recursion is an important part of the functional programming paradigm (yes, I do know that LISP is not a purely functional language...)
LISP denotes, List Processing. List Processing without cons ????? Ugh.
On Mon, 23 May 2011 00:52:07 -0700, asandroq wrote: > On May 23, 4:29 am, Deeyana <d.awlb...@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>> You might be interested in Clojure, then. Lists are more abstracted, >> like in Scheme, and vectors and also dictionaries/maps and sets are >> first class citizens along side lists. And unlike Scheme, Clojure has >> good library/host interop support. You can write real-world >> applications in it without spontaneously combusting.
> Nonsense.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Nothing that I write is ever "nonsense".
> Several Scheme systems have excellent FFIs with more than "good library/ > host interop support".
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Scheme does not come OOTB with any suitable libraries for host interop and though it can make calls to C libraries, doing so is awkward and involves difficulties with the impedance mismatch between Scheme's data structures and C's char *, void *, int, double, array, etc. types. To top it off, C lacks automatic memory management, which means you'll have to concern yourself with manually disposing of allocated data structures used in interop. (Or, worse, things will get garbage collected by the Scheme runtime that the Scheme code no longer references, but the C library is still using, and bam! SIGSEGV.)
And then you gain what, the diverse mix of platform-specific, unportable, sometimes-wonky C libraries?
Versus Clojure immediately granting simple, easy to use access to a large standard Java library that works more or less the same across a broad range of host platforms, as well as the rest of the JVM library ecosystem, which mostly has the same qualities. Clojure being designed for the JVM, there's much less of an impedance mismatch with Java's types, and the interop call syntax is easy to master and won't set your hair on fire.
On May 24, 12:27 am, Deeyana <d.awlb...@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Scheme does not come OOTB > with any suitable libraries for host interop and though it can make calls > to C libraries, doing so is awkward and involves difficulties with the > impedance mismatch between Scheme's data structures and C's char *, void > *, int, double, array, etc. types. To top it off, C lacks automatic > memory management, which means you'll have to concern yourself with > manually disposing of allocated data structures used in interop. (Or, > worse, things will get garbage collected by the Scheme runtime that the > Scheme code no longer references, but the C library is still using, and > bam! SIGSEGV.)
On Tue, 24 May 2011 13:39:15 -0700, asandroq wrote: > On May 24, 12:27 am, Deeyana <d.awlb...@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Scheme does not come OOTB >> with any suitable libraries for host interop and though it can make >> calls to C libraries, doing so is awkward and involves difficulties >> with the impedance mismatch between Scheme's data structures and C's >> char *, void *, int, double, array, etc. types. To top it off, C lacks >> automatic memory management, which means you'll have to concern >> yourself with manually disposing of allocated data structures used in >> interop. (Or, worse, things will get garbage collected by the Scheme >> runtime that the Scheme code no longer references, but the C library is >> still using, and bam! SIGSEGV.)
