August 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: Common Lisp vs. Scheme 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

(defun fact (n) (labels ((fact-it (n acc) (if (< n 2) acc (fact-it (- n 1) (* n acc))))) (fact-it n 1))) ... tells me that the interpreter does NOT do tail call elimination, but the *compiler* does.

2 participants
1 comments

Re: What about Guile ? 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Common Lisp vs. Scheme 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

>>>>> "Raymond" == Raymond Toy <toy(a)rtp.ericsson.se> writes: Raymond> Which compilers do this? I know Stalin is very good, but Raymond> it compiles to C as does gambit, so these must have the Raymond> performance hit. Can you really call what `gambit' creates "C"? Wow. It's *not* readable by mortal humans. Raymond> I understand the desire and need for tail-recursive Raymond> algorithms, and I think we should strive to have it. Of course. "Tail recursion wasn't invented in vain." Compare: (while listvar (myfunction (car listvar)) (setq listvar (cdr listvar))) (let loop ((listvar listvar)) (myfunction (car listvar)) (loop (cdr listvar))) ... they look close to the same to me. Will someone post an example of something that named let or letrec can do more elegantly than iterative constructions? I'm too new at this to think of any.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: XEmacs source tree fork looming -- we need a naming scheme 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes: sb> The best current suggestion is pig breeds and this amuses me sb> now that XEmacs is lighter (and since 20.4 faster) than it has sb> been in many years. Actually, that would make it more appropriate. A goal for a hog breeder is to produce leaner pork.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Sperber <sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes: >>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: Hrvoje> Uh, I am ashamed to admit that I don't understand these Hrvoje> examples. Michael> No shame in that. At first, understanding call/cc Michael> requires twisting your neck by 180 degrees, which I found Michael> hard to do initially. I thought that the ability to twist your neck 180 degrees, like an owl, was the thing that enables one to more readily understand regular expressions.

1 participants
0 comments

[crash] file coding doesn't fix crash 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

I tried without file-codeing, and it still crashes, but only on the laptop. I recompiled with file coding and with debugging and error checking on, and got the following typescript... This happens when I try to `M-x customize-face default'. At the bottom is a typescript from running it under `gdb'. I will keep this binary handy, so let me know if you need me to peek at anything in it. Uhhmmm... it's seg faulting in `malloc()'. Here's the Installation file... "Is this using the included malloc, or the one in a possibly buggy libc?" Looks like it's using the glibc one, I think. YTMAWBK. dpkg --status libc6 shows:

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

>>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: Hrvoje> karlheg(a)inetarena.com (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes: >> >>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: >> Hrvoje> I'd have to learn Scheme to be able to contribute to such Hrvoje> an XEmacs at all. >> >> I think you should learn scheme before you argue against it >> anyway, Hrvoje. Hrvoje> Fair advice. >> From what I've glimpsed, call/cc looks like GOTO on acid. Hrvoje> I'd better base my judgement on knowledge rather than on Hrvoje> glimpses. I'll try to buy the book Justin recommended. >> Tell us what you think of Scheme after that, Please. Hrvoje> I will. Cool. Do you have any trouble finding computer books where you live?

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Sperber <sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes: >>>>> "Reggie" == Reggie Perry <Reggie.Perry(a)digital.com> writes: Reggie> There are several arguments for common lisp. Michael> I claim that migration to Common Lisp is roughly as Michael> expensive as migration to Scheme. But the theses was that Common Lisp is a better language for developing large software products with. So perhaps it "costs" the same to get to the point where you can start writing code in the new language, but one is better than the other for creating complex interworking systems. (For code developers, system administration, process control interfaces, ... (tell me what else! I'm interested.))

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

What features of Scheme do we want for XEmacs Clisp? tail recursive, named let, the `=>' construct in `cond' blocks, continuations? define-syntax

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 26 years, 3 months

Karl M. Hegbloom

Have yous seen `ilog-talk'? It's a EU-Lisp implementation from a french company. There's a free for non-commercial use version on Sunsite, for Linux. It's got a really neat setup, and is worth spending a day looking over. Maybe it would be cool to borrow some ideas from them. (Note: I'm not an experienced or professional programmer, yet. I don't know a lot about the subtleties of the various Lisp and Scheme implementations, or what makes a good language. I've briefly looked over a bunch of stuff, and am, these days, busy reading foundation material... I'm studying Scheme and algorithms... and reading too much email. I will be back to help with some coding, perhaps, after a year or so of studies.) goto LURK;

1 participants
0 comments

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta August 1998