newlispfanclub.alh.net

I think it's cool, but I'm not sure this would result in very clear code (for others reading it). People coming to newLISP from other Lisps would be baffled by this. Does the advantage of not having to write an 'if' make it worth it? I'm not sure... BTW, Clojure has a builtin function called 'comp' ...

Thank you very much for sharing, I'll check it out. Up to now my impression is that the approach of xml to name-spaces is provably the most effective one: Using a URL to define a unique global name-space and a symbol that references it as a prefix to cut down on the verbosity. e.g.: in the module f...

cormullion wrote:It's cool! Thanks. Some useful by-products from your recent Clojure investigations?!

Yup!

I actually use a newLISP script to run Clojure. :-p

Yes, though the manual does use that convention for some reason, I don't see the point. I see it as adding confusion to my code and giving me one more thing to have to worry about (should I use setf or setq here?). There's no reason to burden yourself with unnecessary complexity.

Oh, and btw, this was made possible by the recent addition of the prefix function. :-)

I just released a little bit of code that makes modularization real simple and safe like in Java. Check it out:

http://newlispfanclub.alh.net/forum/vie ... f=2&t=3670

I've created a little project that adds Java-like namespaces to newLISP! You can now do stuff like: (ns-import 'com.example.*) (ns-import 'com.example2.Test) (Test:foo "bar") In a nutshell, this solves the name clashing issues in newLISP and means newLISP is now much easier to use for large projects...

So it looks like both setq and setf are faster than set . I ran these tests multiple times, and the q and f versions are consistently faster. Lutz, should we be using setq in place of set for the slight speed increase? I don't think setq should be used at all, there's no reason for it as it's just ...

OK thanks, either I forgot about that, or I never knew it to begin with. :-p

Maybe that could be mentioned in the fork/process docs? Seems like something that could trip up a lot of folks..

Same problem with 'fork':

v.10.2.9
Or another version:
That happens instantly. There's no delay despite the (sleep 2000) call. Shouldn't there be a delay?

The idea of using one call to set with multiple symbol/value pairs versus multiple calls to set with just one symbol/value pair for each call appeals to my aversion to redundancy. but michael makes a compelling case in the test code that he posted. I don't understand, why "but"? His test code shows...

Regarding the set thing... I've actually done the same benchmarks, and they've affected how I decide to use set or setf. Basically, I've found that setf is faster for situations where only 1 variable needs to be set, but if you're setting multiple things in a row, set is faster (if called once for a...

I'd have to look at your setup to be able to figure out what's going wrong, I can't just guess.

To figure this out, the files you need to look at are config.lsp and dragonfly.lsp.

Check your DRAGONFLY_ROOT constant, make sure it's correctly set. In the standard config.lsp it's set to this: ; docroot (also site root, usually doesn't need modification) (constant (global 'DOCUMENT_ROOT) (env "DOCUMENT_ROOT")) ; dragonfly root (constant (global 'DRAGONFLY_ROOT) (string DOCUMENT_R...

Normally large amounts of data is stored in some sort of a database, not loaded all at once. Dragonfly has excellent support for sqlite3 (see the docs for DF.DB). You can also use something like memcache.

Any suggestions, or am I stuck running Apache or Lighttpd or similar to make this happen? Why do you consider that "stuck"? newLISP's built-in web server isn't exactly designed to serve as a replacement for Apache or lighttpd, it's primarily for testing purposes. Or is this just a matter of conveni...

I don't think newLISP's built-in web server is designed to be used to host live websites.... Doesn't sound like a very good idea. :-\

Fundamentally LISPs are different in that expressions are based on the list data structure, and this structure is directly accessible to the executing code. The syntax and various other features are really just extraneous stuff that people throw on top of this fact. Other languages can interpret str...

I sent Lutz an email asking for comment and here's his response: People should just goto http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and read up on related questions. Regarding linking the newLISP script and newLISP executable or shipping it together, it is pretty much like HPW stated it in the thread:...

My interest in this topic is purely academic - but I'm curious - what do the other scripting languages do for licensing - Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, etc? If different from newLISP, what does newLISP's licence deliver that the others miss out on? All except for Perl appear to be liberal licenses that ...

Glad I could help. :-)

I'm not sure I understand your question. But just looking at your code I see that you're using the same name for all the checkboxes. If you want to do that you should put a '[]' after the name like this: 'input[]' so that Dragonfly gets all the values in a list, not just the last one. Have you looke...

For a language to become popular, it needs as few impediments as possible. The GPL is one such impediment.

I'd just like to cast my vote for the LGPL (or if possible, an even more liberal license).