comp.lang.lisp Google Group

Re: What do you LISPers think of Haskell?

ven...@virgilio.it (Vend) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:00:53 UT

Good.
Ok.
I disagree. Many security-critical bugs of programs still in use are
caused by unchecked array overflows. Not everybody is using bounds
chekers.

Re: What do you LISPers think of Haskell?

jpth...@online.no (John Thingstad) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:38:28 UT

På Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:59:14 +0200, skrev Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>:
And do.. Microsoft's C/C++ has this as a optional feature.
It can also check for stack overflow and stack overwrite (in software)
Also on newer Intel processors you can have DEP protection. (Data
Execution Prevention)
(I recommend changing the OS setting to enable it for all programs even

Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?

r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:36:26 UT

+---------------
+---------------
WQell, what I wonder is why you failed to quote the lines from my post
that showed that each run *WAS* in fact being compiled [which CMUCL does
by default for each call to TIME]?!?!?
cmu> (time (dotimes (i 2000000000)))
; Compiling LAMBDA NIL: <=== THESE TWO LINES

Re: tracing all functions in a package

jpth...@online.no (John Thingstad) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:00:14 UT

På Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:35:48 +0200, skrev John Thingstad
<jpth...@online.no>:
Thanks to all that replied. I eventually ended up with the following code.
(Just another utillity in my /Lisp Programs/misc directory.)
Note that 'package can be a a package structure, a package symbol or nick
and defaults to current *package*.

Re: What do you LISPers think of Haskell?

ven...@virgilio.it (Vend) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:59:14 UT

Are you attempting to mount and argument from authority?
Which isn't the language default implementation of arrays.
Moreover, the [] operator of std::vector isn't required to perform
boundary checks.
It uses C-like arrays as it's default and native implementation of
arrays, that's more than just retaining compatibility.

Re: SBCL's (run-program ... :output out) is not working on Windows

kreu...@progn.net (Richard M Kreuter) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:46:35 UT

This is the sort of question that's best posed on the sbcl-help
mailing list, but the answer is that the modes of RUN-PROGRAM that
involve using a Lisp stream as input, output, or error for the
external program don't yet work on Windows. Until that changes, as a
workaround, for most uses, you might have the external program write

Re: What do you LISPers think of Haskell?

ven...@virgilio.it (Vend) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:26:41 UT

Did I say there was a problem?
Right. But Foo is not the most specific type of the object 'a' is
pointing to. The most specific type is not knowable to the compiler,
hence the language is not completely statically typed.
Un(i)typed and dynamically typed languages can be seen as an extreme
case of this situation: all variables are of the same type which can

Re: SBCL's (run-program ... :output out) is not working on Windows

r...@rawmbp.local (Raymond Wiker) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:01:04 UT

Just guessing here, but I think that "echo" is a shell
built-in (if you can all "cmd" a shell...)
(run-program "cmd" '("/c" "echo" "hi") ...) might work.

Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?

ve...@mac.com (verec) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:37:53 UT

Don't you think your example would be more convincing if you were
to show us a) that the memory address at which each instance of your
code has been compiled is indeed cache friendly, b) that cache
friendliness is preserved accross VM mapping, and c) that no other
process on your system was stealing time away, 3 runs out of 4 ?

Re: [xah] Fundamental Problems of Lisp

d...@geddis.org (Don Geddis) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:28:48 UT

"xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2008:
[...]
[...]
Xah, I disagreed with much of what you wrote in that post. But rather than
comment negatively on the content, I wanted to comment positively on the
form. You didn't gratuitously insult your readers (much...), and you
attempted to be constructive. I appreciate the effort, at least (if perhaps

Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?

d...@geddis.org (Don Geddis) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:33:15 UT

r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2008:
Shouldn't you first compile code, that you want to time?
If you're running interpreted code, how can you be so certain that this
is the correct explanation for the difference in run times?
-- Don
______________________________ ______________________________ ___________________

SBCL's (run-program ... :output out) is not working on Windows

kneo.f...@gmail.com (Kneo Fang) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:05:56 UT

Hi everyone,
I'm using SBCL on Windows. The following code returns "hi" on Linux, but
an empty string on Windows:
(with-output-to-string (out)
(run-program "echo" '("hi") :input t :output out :search t))
What should I do to make it work on Windows?
Thanks,
Kneo Fang

Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?

r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:56:58 UT

+---------------
+---------------
The only thing I can contribute to that is:
1. Compiled CLs are not always careful about placing functions
on optimal cache line boundaries.
2. Item #1 can make a *significant* difference in runtime.
For example, in CMUCL, consider these successive trials:
cmu> (time (dotimes (i 2000000000)))

Re: reduced size symbols/keywords

r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:18:15 UT

+---------------
...
+---------------
You can still do this with a hash table, by using the optional
default of GETHASH. Just change Pascal's suggestion to:
(defparameter *unique-strings* (make-hash-table :test (function equal)))
(defparameter *unique-count* 0)
(defstruct interned-string count string other-data)

Re: Fundamental Problems of Lisp

mich...@elehack.net (Michael Ekstrand) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:54:54 UT

I think that something along the lines of "the results of evaluating an
expression or statement written in the language" would be a suitable
working definition. No, I don't have a citation for that. But in my
experience, people don't tend to be too confused as to what "semantics"
means.
I think you have this backwards. Syntax is meaningless without