newlispfanclub.alh.net

Then why use contexts or OOP at all? Why indeed. Especially when implemented in a half-assed kludgy way as in C++ or Java. As for newLISP, I tried using contexts as objects but the performance was dog slow. Whether FOOP is worth it remains to be seen. I certainly haven't seen any advantages to it y...

Jeff wrote:Advantages: lexical scoping

Lexical scoping is nothing but a computer "science" shibboleth.

newBert wrote:I think I'm going to abandon definitely Scheme ;)

I think you should abandon any indefinite Schemes too! ;-)

I downloaded the Mac PPC version last night. Everything is working just fine so far on OS X 10.4.11.
-

Building it in makes the languages syntax more complex. It is confusing and it also makes building expressions on the fly more difficult.

Fanda wrote:In my opinion it sometimes makes things harder to read, because you have to remember exactly how many parameters function takes.

Well said.

Syntax should be as clear as possible. Some algorithms cannot be expressed simply, because they are not simple algorithms. They can however be broken up into simpler pieces, it's called modular programming. Regexes suck because they 1) don't do that and 2) use such terse symbols that one need const...

HPW wrote: Paste it in RegexBuddy and let explain it:

I would have to get a M$ Windoze system in order to do that. That seems like going from bad to worse! ;-)

Holy Schneikees! What is *that* supposed to do? Only a nitwit would write something like that or spend time figuring out what it did. I must say that the excessive use of macros in LISP is another example of this syndrome. I don't care how rich he is, Paul Graham is dead wrong. Clear , concise, and...

With awk you can break it up into program steps. Better yet is to get rid of all those awful special characters in regular expressions. Here is a discussion of a possible LISPy way out of Perl/regex hell:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlternativesToRegularExpressions

cormullion wrote: Is there a rough rule of thumb for when converting Perl regexen to newLISP

Yes, don't. Use awk. It may be wordy but at least it is comprehensible.

Subroutines instead of functions, whatever floats your boat, but I'll pass.

Meh... must be why I don't like compilers. Better to push 1 on the stack then another, etc...

That dolist looks like Fortran (as do all dolists).

(func3 (func2 (func1 s))) is LISP !!!
-

Jeff wrote:Rather than parsing 1 + 1 and requiring the parser to turn into something like PLUS, 1, 1 for the evaluating code

Shouldn't that be 1 1 PLUS ?

God, what a mongrelized bastard newLISP is! (this is a good thing.)

With C library support and sockets, a TCL/TK interface, and now Java graphics it's the language of The Day of the Triffids. Watch out, you will be assimilated!

Hmmmm.. It looks like WindowServer is started by mach_init way before any global shell stuff is executed. Just check to make sure your custom wrapper hasn't been nuked after a software upgrade.

So does OS X distribute your forked procs over all the processors? :-)

You can stick the command ulimit -u 256 (or whatever number) in bashrc (or lower) and then all user privilege level shells and child processes will inherit that limit for the lifetime of the process.

There are a number of subsystems that have configurable settings at startup. You can run the command sysctl -a to see all of them. Everything is called from the /etc/rc file and it is usually a good idea to place your custom changes in the appropriate file called by rc such as (in this instance) sys...

The default number of procs per user session in OS X is 100. There is a configuration parameter maxprocperuid in a .conf file over in /etc (i forget which) that you can set to override this limit.

Why do you find it necessary to use a macro for this?

The SATA drive should not be a factor either as War and Peace will easily fit into RAM. I know you are thrilled as all get out by your toy, but frankly I'm not impressed. Given the current state of OSX and the available compilers, using a quad core for anything but a server seems pretty silly to me....

Jeff wrote: Interestingly enough, it takes about the same amount of time (assuming we are still talking about war and peace) on a quad-core g5.

That's because it is only using one processor.

Is there no way to iterate quickly over the chars in a string? What is newLisp's internal representation of a string like? Strings and text appear as contiguous areas of memory in newLISP. Fastest iteration I've found while staying in newLISP is to index into them from the base address: (time (setq...

Don't let that computer just sit there. Generate some cpu cycles!
---

---