Here's a Lisp Interpreter implemented in ActionScript 3 w/in Flash
http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/As3Lisp.html
and the blog of the author
http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/
He stated that he'll release the source code soon.
Brian
Brian Adkins <···········@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Here's a Lisp Interpreter implemented in ActionScript 3 w/in Flash
Is this really sensible? What is this good for? Wouldn't a JavaScript
implementation be way more portable?
What about a direct LISP-Plugin for browsers? The Emacs web browser
has already one. ;-)
> http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/As3Lisp.html
Quoting from the site:
| Some one [...] noticed that closures don't seem to work [...]
So this implementation is currently useless for any serious work.
Greets,
Volker
--
Volker Grabsch
---<<(())>>---
Administrator
NotJustHosting GbR
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Volker Grabsch wrote:
> Brian Adkins <···········@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> Here's a Lisp Interpreter implemented in ActionScript 3 w/in Flash
>
> Is this really sensible? What is this good for?
What do you mean? If one person needs to use ActionScript3 for some
reason, but prefer to use lisp instead, isn't that good for something?
> Wouldn't a JavaScript
> implementation be way more portable?
There already are a couple of those.
Kjetil S. Matheussen <··············@notam02.no> schrieb:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Volker Grabsch wrote:
>
>> Brian Adkins <···········@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> Here's a Lisp Interpreter implemented in ActionScript 3 w/in Flash
>>
>> Is this really sensible? What is this good for?
>
> What do you mean? If one person needs to use ActionScript3 for some
> reason,
That's exactly my question. What could this "some reason" be?
What's the extra Layer "ActionScript3" good for?
It's a very hard assumption that the client browser has an installed
current Flash plugin.
Why not developing directly a LISP plugin for browsers? Aren't there
any? What's the advantage of Flash over a LISP plugin?
The only one I know about is that Flash is spreaded somewhat wider,
i.e. a portability argument. However, this doesn't hold because in
that case a LISP interpreter in JavaScript would be an even better
choice.
So I wonder what this is good for. Of course it is good for something,
I'd just like to know for what.
Greets,
Volker
--
Volker Grabsch
---<<(())>>---
Administrator
NotJustHosting GbR
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Volker Grabsch wrote:
>
> So I wonder what this is good for. Of course it is good for something,
> I'd just like to know for what.
>
Okay. You wrote "what is this good for?", which can be interpreted as a
hostile comment. I guess you should have written "what can I use it for?"
or something instead then?
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Volker Grabsch wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > So I wonder what this is good for. Of course it is good for something,
>> > I'd just like to know for what.
>> >
>>
>> Okay. You wrote "what is this good for?", which can be interpreted as a
>> hostile comment. I guess you should have written "what can I use it for?"
>> or something instead then?
>>
>
> <hint>
> I guess you should have written "or something else" (yes, no "then" either).
Well, right, thanks.
> But I would never mention it because your "from" address suggests you are
> from Norway, and there is no reason to expect everyone in Norway to have
> mastered English as well as Erik.
> </hint>
>
Unfortunately he knows norwegian better than english.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> > But I would never mention it because your "from" address suggests you are
> > from Norway, and there is no reason to expect everyone in Norway to have
> > mastered English as well as Erik.
> > </hint>
> >
>
> Unfortunately he knows norwegian better than english.
>
Well, that was a bit shortminded. Its fortunate for you who do not speak
norwegian, of course. Why did he leave comp.lang.lisp by the way? What is
the trick?
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <·······@notam02.no> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
>
... about Erik Naggum:
> Why did he leave comp.lang.lisp by the way? What is
> the trick?
You seem to know... So, why did he "leave" c.l.l.?
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo(at)mac(dot)com
"Don't ask me! I haven't been reading comp.lang.lisp long enough to
really know ..."
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Frank Goenninger DG1SBG wrote:
> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <·······@notam02.no> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> >
> ... about Erik Naggum:
> > Why did he leave comp.lang.lisp by the way? What is
> > the trick?
>
> You seem to know...
No I don't. I guess I could search the net, but I wanted to know
what Tilton had to say, since he brought it up.
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
> No I don't. I guess I could search the net, but I wanted to know
> what Tilton had to say, since he brought it up.
No, fool, you brought it up. I simply tipped my hat to Erik's well-known
mastery of English. You are the one who wants to change the subject from
tolerance of syntax errors in non-native language speech to an ugly
privacy violating gossip-fest. Charming. Not.
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
>> No I don't. I guess I could search the net, but I wanted to know what
>> Tilton had to say, since he brought it up.
>
> No, fool, you brought it up.
Sigh. My first thought after posting the above was: Oh no, Tilton is
now going to write.... You brought up the Naggum subject, not me.
> I simply tipped my hat to Erik's well-known
> mastery of English. You are the one who wants to change the subject from
> tolerance of syntax errors in non-native language speech to an ugly privacy
> violating gossip-fest. Charming. Not.
>
Right. But I really don't like being compared to that guy.
Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
>>
>>> No I don't. I guess I could search the net, but I wanted to know what
>>> Tilton had to say, since he brought it up.
>>
>>
>> No, fool, you brought it up.
>
>
> Sigh. My first thought after posting the above was: Oh no, Tilton is now
> going to write.... You brought up the Naggum subject, not me.
OK, in legal terms we call that "consciousness of guilt". But I
understand, "delete" is never fast enough to head off NG propagation.
You /did/ try to delete the article once you realized you had lied about
me, didn't you?.... Didn't you?... Oh, my...
Getting back OT, please note that it should have been "Oh, no! Tilton is
[right].", not "Oh no". He is an American short track speedskater, methinks.
> Right. But I really don't like being compared to that guy.
>
Because you come up so short? Above you tried to villify me just because
I called you on an unwarranted villification of someone else. A pattern
emerges.
Erik always tried to point out that you who so assiduously take every
excuse to go for the jugular would profit infinitely more by meditating
on your own aggressiveness than pissing around on Usenet.
P� Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:27:24 +0200, skrev Ken Tilton
<···········@optonline.net>:
> Erik always tried to point out that you who so assiduously take every
> excuse to go for the jugular would profit infinitely more by meditating
> on your own aggressiveness than pissing around on Usenet.
And like Eric you are the last to apply this wisdom to youself..
P� Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:02:30 +0200, skrev John Thingstad
<··············@chello.no>:
> P� Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:27:24 +0200, skrev Ken Tilton
> <···········@optonline.net>:
>
>
>> Erik always tried to point out that you who so assiduously take every
>> excuse to go for the jugular would profit infinitely more by meditating
>> on your own aggressiveness than pissing around on Usenet.
>
> And like Eric you are the last to apply this wisdom to youself..
Erik!
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> P� Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:02:30 +0200, skrev John Thingstad
> <··············@chello.no>:
>
>> P� Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:27:24 +0200, skrev Ken Tilton
>> <···········@optonline.net>:
>>
>>
>>> Erik always tried to point out that you who so assiduously take
>>> every excuse to go for the jugular would profit infinitely more by
>>> meditating on your own aggressiveness than pissing around on
>>> Usenet.
>>
>> And like Eric you are the last to apply this wisdom to youself..
>
> Erik!
Come on... Kenny and Erik cannot *both* be the last... there
must be an epsilon of difference somewhere.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Ken Tilton wrote:
[lots of babbling]
> Erik always tried to point out that you who so assiduously take every excuse
> to go for the jugular would profit infinitely more by meditating on your own
> aggressiveness than pissing around on Usenet.
>
*rolling with eyes*
Erik is a guy who generates huge flame wars in many serious (and some not
so serious, partly thanks to him) fora. You have seen only a small part of
it, because, I would guess, you don't read norwegian. He creates _a lot_
of noise and anger which servers very little purpose. The more we ignore
him, the better, in my opinion. So as a nice gesture for humanity and
whatnot, you could stop quoting and referencing to him and otherwice make
impressions that he might be a great guy.
Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> *rolling with eyes*
You then offered detailed evidence of the huge axe you hope to grind
here in c.l.l given the vaguest excuse. Thx, I will be able to use that
against you for the rest of this thread. :)
Your premise is that any mention here on a Lisp forum of a long-time
Lisp guru who gave a great talk at LUGM '99 (just one ferinstance of
many Lisp contribs) justifies you trotting out your axe for a good grind
of personal villification.
Let it go.
Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
>>
>>> No I don't. I guess I could search the net, but I wanted to know what
>>> Tilton had to say, since he brought it up.
>>
>>
>> No, fool, you brought it up.
>
>
> Sigh. My first thought after posting the above was: Oh no, Tilton is now
> going to write.... You brought up the Naggum subject, not me.
Sorry, I missed the subtlety in which you lied about the lie so it would
not be a lie. Sweet! Help me people, is that a lying lie lie, or just a
lying lie? This is gonna keep me up all night...
Kjetil S. Matheussen <··············@notam02.no> schrieb:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Volker Grabsch wrote:
>>
>> So I wonder what this is good for. Of course it is good for something,
>> I'd just like to know for what.
>
> Okay. You wrote "what is this good for?", which can be interpreted as a
> hostile comment.
Yes, my posting unintentionally sounded like a rant. Sorry for that.
> I guess you should have written "what can I use it for?"
> or something instead then?
No, this wasn't meant, either, because *I* don't indend to use it.
I'm just curious what other people use it for.
Greets,
Volker
--
Volker Grabsch
---<<(())>>---
Administrator
NotJustHosting GbR
On 2007-08-24, Volker Grabsch <··············@v.notjusthosting.com> wrote:
> That's exactly my question. What could this "some reason" be?
> What's the extra Layer "ActionScript3" good for?
>
> It's a very hard assumption that the client browser has an installed
> current Flash plugin.
Flash is very common today, and depending on Flash is probably less of a
restriction than, say, depending on a Java plugin. Being able to
develop Flash movies in a Lisp dialect is a very interesting option and
a great alternative to Adobe's IDE.
However, when already depending on Flash in general, and AVM2 for
ActionScript 3 in particular, I doubt that a Lisp -interpreter- is an
interesting implementation choice. It would be much more interesting to
have a compiler targeting AVM2 bytecode. (Possibly with an optional
interpreter for added flexibility, but not as the main implementation
strategy.)
Some specs from Adobe about AVM2 have been released already, but since
the licensing terms for those specifications are rather restrictive, it
would probably be better to work based on information found in Tamarin
source code instead.
I have found a language with influences from ActionScript (for its class
library and basic data types), Java (static typing and an OO system
using classes rather than prototypes), and Lisp (syntax and Lisp-like
special forms) to be well suited to Flash development.
Volker Grabsch wrote:
> Kjetil S. Matheussen <··············@notam02.no> schrieb:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Volker Grabsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brian Adkins <···········@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>>Here's a Lisp Interpreter implemented in ActionScript 3 w/in Flash
>>>
>>>Is this really sensible? What is this good for?
>>
>>What do you mean? If one person needs to use ActionScript3 for some
>>reason,
>
>
> That's exactly my question. What could this "some reason" be?
> What's the extra Layer "ActionScript3" good for?
Integration with all those groovy Flash graphics and audio stuff? A
widely-installed plug-in?
>
> It's a very hard assumption that the client browser has an installed
> current Flash plugin.
<cough> Why? Do you mean the casual web surfer might not have it and
surf on rather than install? That still leaves a solid chunk of
opportunity for web application delivery where your users will install a
solid plugin like Flash as readily as they would d/l and install a
desktop application.
>
> Why not developing directly a LISP plugin for browsers? Aren't there
> any?
We are waiting for Franz to get off their collective butt and produce one.
> What's the advantage of Flash over a LISP plugin?
See above for added value of Flash.
>
> The only one I know about is that Flash is spreaded somewhat wider,
> i.e. a portability argument. However, this doesn't hold because in
> that case a LISP interpreter in JavaScript would be an even better
> choice.
Uh, are you forgetting that the hack was done for the person's own
pleasure, not as a grand statement about optimal Lisp plugins? Maybe
they just saw it as a fun way to learn AS and got carried away?
>
> So I wonder what this is good for. Of course it is good for something,
> I'd just like to know for what.
I think you need to look inward to see why you see no value. I see one
part unwarranted grand expectation, and one part inability to enjoy life.
hth,kxo
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut