I'm a mathematician, and i appreciate a lot the power of
abstraction, it makes man progress.
Human history is plagued with disagreement, when there is a
something to choose, equal value, there is a point for departure.
But in math we have another option, we have abstraction,
we have isomorphism, and we can taste structures, we
believe structures are more fundamental that the inspiring models they
are based upon.
Bla, Bla, Bla, ...
Now i give a
Definition:
Any language that have FullForm, that is easy access to the parse
tree of expressions, and eval for evaluating this
tree is True-Lisp.
So that for example, Mathematica is True-Lisp and Maple is not True-
Lisp.
Postulate:
1.- A True-Lisp language should use a pletora of methods to make the
programs easy to read. Observe, for example, how mathematica
iteractive environment enpower the language.
2.- In order for open software to enter a new dimension we need that:
a) Non True-Lisp languages became True-Lisp languages.
b) True-Lisp languages became enpowered with a very
powerful environment: libraries, IDE's, ...
Postulate: I'm not a frog-like or a true-frog.
On 18 oct, 16:30, ········@yahoo.es wrote:
> I'm a mathematician, and i appreciate a lot the power of
> abstraction, it makes man progress.
>
> Human history is plagued with disagreement, when there is a
> something to choose, equal value, there is a point for departure.
>
> But in math we have another option, we have abstraction,
> we have isomorphism, and we can taste structures, we
> believe structures are more fundamental that the inspiring models they
> are based upon.
>
> Bla, Bla, Bla, ...
>
> Now i give a
>
> Definition:
>
> Any language that have FullForm, that is easy access to the parse
> tree of expressions, and eval for evaluating this
> tree is True-Lisp.
>
> So that for example, Mathematica is True-Lisp and Maple is not True-
> Lisp.
>
> Postulate:
>
> 1.- A True-Lisp language should use a pletora of methods to make the
> programs easy to read. Observe, for example, how mathematica
> iteractive environment enpower the language.
>
> 2.- In order for open software to enter a new dimension we need that:
>
> a) Non True-Lisp languages became True-Lisp languages.
>
> b) True-Lisp languages became enpowered with a very
> powerful environment: libraries, IDE's, ...
>
> Postulate: I'm not a frog-like or a true-frog.
For example, i would like ruby to be a candidate front-end for a true-
lisp language.
A unidimensional man may think s-expressions are a lot of
parenthesis,
but that not true:
You can perfectly read
5.times do {|x| puts x}
as (dolist (x '(1 2 3 4 5)) (princ x)) or whatever.
Why being one-dimensional?
It should be very fun that we could appreciate other people cooking
withoud being fundamentalist, again i remind you that i'm not a frog.
Perhaps if you look yourself in a mirror, there is a warn in it.
The warn of the unidimensional man.
On Oct 18, 11:46 am, ········@yahoo.es wrote:
> You can perfectly read
>
> 5.times do {|x| puts x}
>
> as (dolist (x '(1 2 3 4 5)) (princ x)) or whatever.
no, I can't. It's not because Lisp stands for LISt Processor that we
should throw lists at everything we see fit. If you had 1000.times
your Lisp comparison would be so sad and unecessarily slow! Let's use
iterations when we need, shall we?
I have this and it serves me well enough:
(define (do-n n something)
(let loop ((i 1))
(if (<= i n)
(begin (something i) (loop (+ 1 i))))))
like in:
(do-n 5 display)
that's in Scheme...
On Oct 18, 7:30 am, ········@yahoo.es wrote:
> Definition:
>
> Any language that have FullForm, that is easy access to the parse
> tree of expressions, and eval for evaluating this
> tree is True-Lisp.
A number of languages have this property. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HomoiconicLanguages.
On 18 oct, 17:20, ······@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 7:30 am, ········@yahoo.es wrote:
>
> > Definition:
>
> > Any language that have FullForm, that is easy access to the parse
> > tree of expressions, and eval for evaluating this
> > tree is True-Lisp.
>
> A number of languages have this property. Seehttp://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HomoiconicLanguages.
Reading the page you reference, there is much ambiguity. But i like
this, at the end of HomoiconicFaq:
In the end, what the client programmer
should ask for is results.
I agree with this one. I should make this more concrete, the
definiton of a True-Lisp language
should be backed by the power of the language to construct DSL in a
natural way:
small number of LOC without using specific libraries.
By the way, Qi is not a bad idea.
I should define a way to mix different ideas: Qi = Lisp 80% and
Prolog 10%
So, for example if you want a scripting language you should use:
Qi-Ruby = Lisp 70%
and Ruby 30%
That is we sell flavors.
On Oct 18, 6:30 pm, ········@yahoo.es wrote:
> I'm a mathematician, and i appreciate a lot the power of
> abstraction, it makes man progress.
>
> Human history is plagued with disagreement, when there is a
> something to choose, equal value, there is a point for departure.
>
> But in math we have another option, we have abstraction,
> we have isomorphism, and we can taste structures, we
> believe structures are more fundamental that the inspiring models they
> are based upon.
>
> Bla, Bla, Bla, ...
>
> Now i give a
>
> Definition:
>
> Any language that have FullForm, that is easy access to the parse
> tree of expressions, and eval for evaluating this
> tree is True-Lisp.
>
> So that for example, Mathematica is True-Lisp and Maple is not True-
> Lisp.
>
> Postulate:
>
> 1.- A True-Lisp language should use a pletora of methods to make the
> programs easy to read. Observe, for example, how mathematica
> iteractive environment enpower the language.
>
> 2.- In order for open software to enter a new dimension we need that:
>
> a) Non True-Lisp languages became True-Lisp languages.
>
> b) True-Lisp languages became enpowered with a very
> powerful environment: libraries, IDE's, ...
>
> Postulate: I'm not a frog-like or a true-frog.
hey, lisp is good enough for it's aims and has quite wide usage
spectrum. and i think you better to look at haskell or something like
it more closely and stop trolling =)
j.oke wrote:
> 5) You say you are a mathematician -- so what are you doing here?!
Perhaps you know this situation... you've had at least 14 pints and/or
something akin to ground urinal cake up the nose and then you have that
absolute conviction to tell your profound insights to (all of) Usenet.