··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
No source code?
On 18 juil, 16:19, Matthias Buelow <····@incubus.de> wrote:
> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> > Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> >http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>
> No source code?
Hello
I have not yet decided atm if I will publish the source code or not.
If I decided to the license on the source code would be something like
"for educational purpose only", do you have an idea which existing
license would fit this ?
··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> I have not yet decided atm if I will publish the source code or not.
> If I decided to the license on the source code would be something like
> "for educational purpose only", do you have an idea which existing
> license would fit this ?
I would think the obvious "license" in that case would be distributing a
file with the words "for educational purpose only" with the source code.
··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> Hello
>
> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
quantum computations.
(We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> > http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>
> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
> quantum computations.
>
> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
>
> Pascal
Well, QLisp was well-known...
http://dreamsongs.com/Qlisp.html
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=qlisp&cs=1
Might be interesting to revive it...
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
>> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
>>> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
>> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
>> quantum computations.
>>
>> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
>> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
>>
>> Pascal
>
> Well, QLisp was well-known...
>
> http://dreamsongs.com/Qlisp.html
>
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=qlisp&cs=1
>
> Might be interesting to revive it...
Charlotte Herzeel, Leonardo Uribe and myself have been looking into
several parallel Lisp dialects in the past few months, and have used
"our" QLisp (for quantum computations) as a test case (because quantum
computations are inherently parallel).
We have looked at Connection Machine Lisp, *Lisp (StarLisp) and
Paralation Lisp, which are nice approaches for doing data parallelism in
Lisp. We have presented a first report about this at the European Lisp
Workshop last week. (Unfortunately the website for the workshop seems to
be down at the moment, but you should be able to download the paper
there otherwise.)
Data parallelism seems to be quite an appropriate way to go for Lisp,
IMHO...
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
> > Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> >
> >> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> >>> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
> >> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
> >> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
> >> quantum computations.
> >>
> >> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
> >> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
> >>
> >> Pascal
> >
> > Well, QLisp was well-known...
> >
> > http://dreamsongs.com/Qlisp.html
> >
> > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=qlisp&cs=1
> >
> > Might be interesting to revive it...
>
> Charlotte Herzeel, Leonardo Uribe and myself have been looking into
> several parallel Lisp dialects in the past few months, and have used
> "our" QLisp (for quantum computations) as a test case (because quantum
> computations are inherently parallel).
>
> We have looked at Connection Machine Lisp, *Lisp (StarLisp) and
> Paralation Lisp, which are nice approaches for doing data parallelism in
> Lisp. We have presented a first report about this at the European Lisp
> Workshop last week. (Unfortunately the website for the workshop seems to
> be down at the moment, but you should be able to download the paper
> there otherwise.)
>
> Data parallelism seems to be quite an appropriate way to go for Lisp,
> IMHO...
For what kind of machine architecture? SIMDs like CMs?
>
>
> Pascal
There is also a Scheme-related language "quantum":
http://library.readscheme.org/servlets/cite.ss?pattern=LMor-Mor97e
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
>> Rainer Joswig wrote:
>>> In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
>>>>> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>>>> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
>>>> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
>>>> quantum computations.
>>>>
>>>> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
>>>> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
>>>>
>>>> Pascal
>>> Well, QLisp was well-known...
>>>
>>> http://dreamsongs.com/Qlisp.html
>>>
>>> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=qlisp&cs=1
>>>
>>> Might be interesting to revive it...
>> Charlotte Herzeel, Leonardo Uribe and myself have been looking into
>> several parallel Lisp dialects in the past few months, and have used
>> "our" QLisp (for quantum computations) as a test case (because quantum
>> computations are inherently parallel).
>>
>> We have looked at Connection Machine Lisp, *Lisp (StarLisp) and
>> Paralation Lisp, which are nice approaches for doing data parallelism in
>> Lisp. We have presented a first report about this at the European Lisp
>> Workshop last week. (Unfortunately the website for the workshop seems to
>> be down at the moment, but you should be able to download the paper
>> there otherwise.)
>>
>> Data parallelism seems to be quite an appropriate way to go for Lisp,
>> IMHO...
>
> For what kind of machine architecture? SIMDs like CMs?
We did our first experiments on the Cell processor architecture, on the
PlayStation 3 actually. Currently, this is on hold due to some technical
problems, but we intend to continue working with that architecture. The
Cell processor is interesting because it is kind of a miniature version
of a Connection Machine.
However, the data-parallel approaches are actually independent of the
underlying hardware architecture. You can also use multi-processing to
implement data parallelism, and we're currently exploring that (on Intel
multicores).
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
> > Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> >>> In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> >>>>> Hello
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> >>>>> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
> >>>> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
> >>>> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
> >>>> quantum computations.
> >>>>
> >>>> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
> >>>> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Pascal
> >>> Well, QLisp was well-known...
> >>>
> >>> http://dreamsongs.com/Qlisp.html
> >>>
> >>> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cis?q=qlisp&cs=1
> >>>
> >>> Might be interesting to revive it...
> >> Charlotte Herzeel, Leonardo Uribe and myself have been looking into
> >> several parallel Lisp dialects in the past few months, and have used
> >> "our" QLisp (for quantum computations) as a test case (because quantum
> >> computations are inherently parallel).
> >>
> >> We have looked at Connection Machine Lisp, *Lisp (StarLisp) and
> >> Paralation Lisp, which are nice approaches for doing data parallelism in
> >> Lisp. We have presented a first report about this at the European Lisp
> >> Workshop last week. (Unfortunately the website for the workshop seems to
> >> be down at the moment, but you should be able to download the paper
> >> there otherwise.)
> >>
> >> Data parallelism seems to be quite an appropriate way to go for Lisp,
> >> IMHO...
> >
> > For what kind of machine architecture? SIMDs like CMs?
>
> We did our first experiments on the Cell processor architecture, on the
> PlayStation 3 actually. Currently, this is on hold due to some technical
> problems, but we intend to continue working with that architecture. The
> Cell processor is interesting because it is kind of a miniature version
> of a Connection Machine.
>
> However, the data-parallel approaches are actually independent of the
> underlying hardware architecture. You can also use multi-processing to
> implement data parallelism, and we're currently exploring that (on Intel
> multicores).
The CPU^h^h^hGPU route maybe interesting. For example
Apple wants to use something called OpenCL for that (not
Lisp related).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> The CPU^h^h^hGPU route maybe interesting. For example
> Apple wants to use something called OpenCL for that (not
> Lisp related).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL
Yes, this looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> We have looked at Connection Machine Lisp, *Lisp (StarLisp) and
> Paralation Lisp, which are nice approaches for doing data parallelism
> in Lisp. We have presented a first report about this at the European
> Lisp Workshop last week. (Unfortunately the website for the workshop
> seems to be down at the moment, but you should be able to download the
> paper there otherwise.)
Up again.
--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Didier Verna, ······@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (0)1 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (0)1 53 14 59 22 ······@xemacs.org
In article <···············@uzeb.lrde.epita.fr>,
Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
> > We have looked at Connection Machine Lisp, *Lisp (StarLisp) and
> > Paralation Lisp, which are nice approaches for doing data parallelism
> > in Lisp. We have presented a first report about this at the European
> > Lisp Workshop last week. (Unfortunately the website for the workshop
> > seems to be down at the moment, but you should be able to download the
> > paper there otherwise.)
>
> Up again.
(def-lesson marketing-1
(post link :relevant t :when :always))
5th European Lisp Workshop
http://elw2008.bknr.net/home
The papers are here:
http://elw2008.bknr.net/submissions
Interesting stuff, I'd say!
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
Here's my attempt if you want to look at a small interpreter (minus
parser).
http://code.google.com/p/lispyj/source/browse/trunk/modules/evaluation_module.js
Wrote the library before I found out about parenscript...
This one implements (quote x) by wrapping x in an object with property
rv._quote=x
When the evaluator sees data with "_quote" property, it returns the
value of the property.
Not sure if this is how other Lisps do it, but this way quote is a
simple macro.
Ali wrote:
> Here's my attempt if you want to look at a small interpreter (minus
> parser).
>
> http://code.google.com/p/lispyj/source/browse/trunk/modules/evaluation_module.js
>
> Wrote the library before I found out about parenscript...
Boy, that really says it all, doen't? That's why Lisp as a language will
never get anywhere. We could have a billion ants and each would be
building its own hill. The language is too damn easy I say. Any other
language one would be googling for days before giving up and reinventing
parenscript, but Lisp? Noooooooooooo.
Harrop may be right. if we had to wrestle with static typing and an
opaque pattern matcher producing inscrutable matches programming would
be the Hell it is supposed to be and we would start building a proper
edifice of libraries.
And i was doing so well with C....
:(
kt
From: Vilho =?utf-8?B?UsOkaXPDpG5lbg==?=
Subject: Re: New List Interpreter
Date:
Message-ID: <877ibad0rg.fsf@iki.fi>
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
So the root cause for Lisp not being more popular is being too
powerful for its own good. Now I understand.
BR,
Vilho
> Ali wrote:
>> Here's my attempt if you want to look at a small interpreter (minus
>> parser).
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/lispyj/source/browse/trunk/modules/evaluation_module.js
>>
>> Wrote the library before I found out about parenscript...
>
> Boy, that really says it all, doen't? That's why Lisp as a language
> will never get anywhere. We could have a billion ants and each would
> be building its own hill. The language is too damn easy I say. Any
> other language one would be googling for days before giving up and
> reinventing parenscript, but Lisp? Noooooooooooo.
>
> Harrop may be right. if we had to wrestle with static typing and an
> opaque pattern matcher producing inscrutable matches programming would
> be the Hell it is supposed to be and we would start building a proper
> edifice of libraries.
>
> And i was doing so well with C....
>
> :(
>
> kt
--
Vilho R�is�nen wrote:
> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> So the root cause for Lisp not being more popular is being too
> powerful for its own good. Now I understand.
It also explains why the IDEs are so crappy: everyone rolls their own at
the same time they are getting pissed off about having to roll their own
and then they start having so much fun Actually Using Lisp they never
think about doing anything to formalize their tools into a proper IDE
and at the same time they would never give up their personal IDEs for
some off-the-shelf one they cannot mold as they please.
Only Franz amongst the commercial vendors has made that effort and I
would say succeeded and I am sure they regret the investment, IDEs are a
PITA. And as much as I love it I curse it every day for the Find File
dialog defaulting to a random directory instead of the frickin project i
just frickin opened helloooooooo??? :)
Oh, I missed an even bigger reason for Lisp's crappy IDEs. A lot of what
sexy C++/Java IDEs do is make up for crappy languages. Look for F# to
have an exceptional IDE, btw. But until one Really Knows Lisp one cannot
leverage its introspective power to make up for the crappy IDEs.
So Lisp is doomed: it will never have libraries and never have
nooby-friendly IDEs. The barrier to entry makes the North wall of the
Eiger look like a cricket pitch.
kt
From: Vilho =?utf-8?B?UsOkaXPDpG5lbg==?=
Subject: Re: New List Interpreter
Date:
Message-ID: <87zlo6b6es.fsf@iki.fi>
Bugger. Luckily the language itself is so powerful that it pays to
climb. The downside is that sometimes the explanation of what a utility
function does is longer than the code.
BR,
Vilho
Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Vilho Räisänen wrote:
>> Kenny <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> So the root cause for Lisp not being more popular is being too
>> powerful for its own good. Now I understand.
>
> It also explains why the IDEs are so crappy: everyone rolls their own
> at the same time they are getting pissed off about having to roll
> their own and then they start having so much fun Actually Using Lisp
> they never think about doing anything to formalize their tools into a
> proper IDE and at the same time they would never give up their
> personal IDEs for some off-the-shelf one they cannot mold as they
> please.
>
> Only Franz amongst the commercial vendors has made that effort and I
> would say succeeded and I am sure they regret the investment, IDEs are
> a PITA. And as much as I love it I curse it every day for the Find
> File dialog defaulting to a random directory instead of the frickin
> project i just frickin opened helloooooooo??? :)
>
> Oh, I missed an even bigger reason for Lisp's crappy IDEs. A lot of
> what sexy C++/Java IDEs do is make up for crappy languages. Look for
> F# to have an exceptional IDE, btw. But until one Really Knows Lisp
> one cannot leverage its introspective power to make up for the crappy
> IDEs.
>
> So Lisp is doomed: it will never have libraries and never have
> nooby-friendly IDEs. The barrier to entry makes the North wall of the
> Eiger look like a cricket pitch.
>
> kt
--
On 18 juil, 22:22, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> > Hello
>
> > Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> >http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>
> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
> quantum computations.
>
> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
>
> Pascal
>
> --
> My website:http://p-cos.net
> Common Lisp Document Repository:http://cdr.eurolisp.org
> Closer to MOP & ContextL:http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Hello
Thanks for your feedback. I am sorry that the name was already taken
by a previous (and I guess much more advanced), then why the domain
was not reserved ? I am open to switch to an othe name if required and
if the cited project QL is still alive or in the way to be
reactivated. Also there is still room for .org and .net so what do you
suggest ?
··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> On 18 juil, 22:22, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
>> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
>>> Hello
>>> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
>>> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
>> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
>> quantum computations.
>>
>> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
>> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>> --
>> My website:http://p-cos.net
>> Common Lisp Document Repository:http://cdr.eurolisp.org
>> Closer to MOP & ContextL:http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
>
> Hello
>
> Thanks for your feedback. I am sorry that the name was already taken
> by a previous (and I guess much more advanced), then why the domain
> was not reserved ?
It's a research language, it's not intended for "production" use. Even
outside of academia, why should it be necessary to have a domain for a
language?
> I am open to switch to an othe name if required and
> if the cited project QL is still alive or in the way to be
> reactivated.
In the academic world, languages don't die just because they are not
used. It should be possible to refer to them without ambiguity no matter
what.
> Also there is still room for .org and .net so what do you
> suggest ?
Do what you want. But I think it's better to avoid ambiguities as far as
possible.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Do what you want. But I think it's better to avoid ambiguities as far as
> possible.
I would think that, perhaps apart from the domain name, the risk of
ambiguity is very low...
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>> Do what you want. But I think it's better to avoid ambiguities as far as
>> possible.
>
> I would think that, perhaps apart from the domain name, the risk of
> ambiguity is very low...
Well, the current situation is actually in favor of quantum computation.
Currently, QLisp means three different things, with different
probabilities. Only if you look closer at it, the system will collapse
and you know which QLisp you actually have. ;)
So QuantumLisp it is... ;)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On 20 juil, 14:04, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> > On 18 juil, 22:22, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> >> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> >>> Hello
> >>> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> >>>http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
> >> This is a bit unfortunate, because the name Quantum Lisp (or QLisp)
> >> already exists, and is actually about an extension of Common Lisp for
> >> quantum computations.
>
> >> (We have screwed up there as well, because QLisp already existed in the
> >> 80's as a testbed for parallel programming constructs.)
>
> >> Pascal
>
> >> --
> >> My website:http://p-cos.net
> >> Common Lisp Document Repository:http://cdr.eurolisp.org
> >> Closer to MOP & ContextL:http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
>
> > Hello
>
> > Thanks for your feedback. I am sorry that the name was already taken
> > by a previous (and I guess much more advanced), then why the domain
> > was not reserved ?
>
> It's a research language, it's not intended for "production" use. Even
> outside of academia, why should it be necessary to have a domain for a
> language?
>
> > I am open to switch to an othe name if required and
> > if the cited project QL is still alive or in the way to be
> > reactivated.
>
> In the academic world, languages don't die just because they are not
> used. It should be possible to refer to them without ambiguity no matter
> what.
>
> > Also there is still room for .org and .net so what do you
> > suggest ?
>
> Do what you want. But I think it's better to avoid ambiguities as far as
> possible.
>
> Pascal
>
> --
> My website:http://p-cos.net
> Common Lisp Document Repository:http://cdr.eurolisp.org
> Closer to MOP & ContextL:http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Hello
I decided to switch to a non ambigous name which is WishLisp and will
move the homepage to the matching domain.
BR
··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> I decided to switch to a non ambigous name which is WishLisp and will
> move the homepage to the matching domain.
You're aware of wish, tcl/tk's WIndows Shell? Not to add some more
confusion...
If I were you, I'd first implement the whole thing, and then when (if)
it's done, decide on a final name and setup a web page.
P� Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:58:33 +0200, skrev Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de>:
> I wrote:
>
>> WIndows Shell?
>
> err... windowed shell, of course. Nothing to do with M$ Windows.
Except it runs under Windows too..
--------------
John Thingstad
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> writes:
> ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
>
>> I decided to switch to a non ambigous name which is WishLisp and will
>> move the homepage to the matching domain.
>
> You're aware of wish, tcl/tk's WIndows Shell? Not to add some more
> confusion...
That's a big problem. I would advise you to use the following
algorithm to name your projects:
(defun make-name ()
(format nil "~(~36R.com~)" (random #36r10000000000000000)))
for example: "z776hpoltn6j7hr8.com"
> If I were you, I'd first implement the whole thing, and then when (if)
> it's done, decide on a final name and setup a web page.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:24:47 +0200, ···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) said:
| ...
| for example: "z776hpoltn6j7hr8.com"
Except that this looks like a Fortran 77 library for the Z Series...
("All the good ones are already taken.")
---Vassil.
--
Peius melius est. ---Ricardus Gabriel.
Vassil Nikolov <···············@pobox.com> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:24:47 +0200, ···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) said:
> | ...
> | for example: "z776hpoltn6j7hr8.com"
>
> Except that this looks like a Fortran 77 library for the Z Series...
>
> ("All the good ones are already taken.")
:-) Yes you still need to use it in a loop and choose a new one.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Pour moi, la grande question n'a jamais �t�: �Qui suis-je? O� vais-je?�
comme l'a formul� si adroitement notre ami Pascal, mais plut�t:
�Comment vais-je m'en tirer?� -- Jean Yanne
On Jul 18, 4:14 pm, ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> Hello
>
> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks agohttp://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
Does defun works?
>(defun double (x) (* 2 x))
DOUBLE
>(double 3)
2
>(defun self (x) x)
SELF
>(self 4)
nil
Bobi
On 19 juil, 08:34, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 18, 4:14 pm, ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
>
> > Hello
>
> > Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks agohttp://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>
> Does defun works?
>
> >(defun double (x) (* 2 x))
> DOUBLE
> >(double 3)
> 2
> >(defun self (x) x)
> SELF
> >(self 4)
>
> nil
>
> Bobi
Hello
Thanks for your feedback, yes your very simple examples didn't even
work. I published a fix on defun today
On 2008-07-18 15:14:44 +0100, ··········@yahoo.fr said:
> Hello
>
> Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
There's always this nagging question: Why?
Do you intend to fill a previously empty niche?
... But Windows already has a plethora of implementations
some free, some half-backed, many serious & reliable...
Do you want to educate yourself?
... That's fine, but without /some/ availability of the
source code, it is very hard for anyone /else/ to help,
judge or offer advice ...
Is that just a "Me Too" exercise?
... That's fine too, but again, that is for your sole
consumption, unless you engage others ...
Is this part 0 of a grander plan?
... But then the site doesn't hint at which direction this
lisp will follow that would set it appart from any other
Starting writing an interpreter (any interpreter) is always
good fun (if you're so inclined of course), but lacking the
source, and any evidence to the contrary, you do not seem to
go on any uncharted territory, and while the "I can do it too"
feeling is always a good rejoicer, lack of substance for others
to share your enthusiasm might lead to yet another stubborn
attempt ...
Among the many, many issues/design decisions that surround such
an endehavor:
- what is the source language?
- what is the implementation language?
- will you want to maintain a clear distinction bewteen
host and target?
- will this interpreter ever grow to a compiler?
- what of the relationships with the external world (FFI/OS)?
- what about GC, threads? efficiency?
- any attempt at "plugging" some /perceived/ hole of CL? Which?
Let's see by August 10, when your Lisp will be twice as old,
where it is that it wants to mature to ... Ah ... those
youngsters, you feed them for years with grandiose plans ...
:-)
--
JFB
On Jul 20, 5:16 pm, verec <·····@mac.com> wrote:
> On 2008-07-18 15:14:44 +0100, ··········@yahoo.fr said:
>
> > Hello
>
> > Here is a new Lisp interpreter that I strted writing just 3 weeks ago
> >http://www.quantumlisp.com, your feedback is welcome
>
> There's always this nagging question: Why?
>
> Do you intend to fill a previously empty niche?
> ... But Windows already has a plethora of implementations
> some free, some half-backed, many serious & reliable...
>
> Do you want to educate yourself?
> ... That's fine, but without /some/ availability of the
> source code, it is very hard for anyone /else/ to help,
> judge or offer advice ...
>
> Is that just a "Me Too" exercise?
> ... That's fine too, but again, that is for your sole
> consumption, unless you engage others ...
>
> Is this part 0 of a grander plan?
> ... But then the site doesn't hint at which direction this
> lisp will follow that would set it appart from any other
>
> Starting writing an interpreter (any interpreter) is always
> good fun (if you're so inclined of course), but lacking the
> source, and any evidence to the contrary, you do not seem to
> go on any uncharted territory, and while the "I can do it too"
> feeling is always a good rejoicer, lack of substance for others
> to share your enthusiasm might lead to yet another stubborn
> attempt ...
>
> Among the many, many issues/design decisions that surround such
> an endehavor:
>
> - what is the source language?
> - what is the implementation language?
> - will you want to maintain a clear distinction bewteen
> host and target?
> - will this interpreter ever grow to a compiler?
> - what of the relationships with the external world (FFI/OS)?
> - what about GC, threads? efficiency?
> - any attempt at "plugging" some /perceived/ hole of CL? Which?
>
> Let's see by August 10, when your Lisp will be twice as old,
> where it is that it wants to mature to ... Ah ... those
> youngsters, you feed them for years with grandiose plans ...
>
> :-)
>
> --
> JFB
Thanks for your detailed feedback and taking the time to write it.
Your guess is right, the primary objective is self-education and
challenging exercise. You are right too that it would make more sense
in that case to publish the source code but maybe I'm arrogant and/or
stupid but I imagine that what starts as an exercise/prototype may one
day become a commercial tool. My main concern is that if I publish the
code I'm afraid that I would not be able later to choose the
"commercial path" if I want to (maybe a compromise would be to publish
the code with "for educational/non profit purpose only" license)
Regarding the niche question there is both maybe a commercial niche
(eg low cost Shareware under 100$) and a technical niche (seamless
integration of a lisp interpreter within a .Net Framework application
and also integrating WinForms API in the interpreter)
From your detailed answer I have the feeling that you know much more
about the problematics of a Lisp interpreter than me as I have only
started discovering them once I stumble on them while trying to run
the samples provided in the reference books that I use (ANSI COmmon
Lisp and Practical Common Lisp). For example I even don't fully
understand what you mean by "distinction between host and target" and
also I have currently no idea on how to implement the compiler in a
Lispy way.
BR
On 2008-07-21 08:06:29 -0400, ··········@yahoo.fr said:
> Regarding the niche question there is both maybe a commercial niche
> (eg low cost Shareware under 100$) and a technical niche (seamless
> integration of a lisp interpreter within a .Net Framework application
> and also integrating WinForms API in the interpreter)
The Larceny Scheme Project includes one version, common larceny, which
runs in the CLR:
"Common Larceny runs in the Common Language Runtime (CLR) of Microsoft
.NET, generating IL, which is JIT-compiled to native machine code by
the CLR."
<http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Larceny/>
<http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Larceny/CommonLarceny/download.html>
··········@yahoo.fr writes:
> From your detailed answer I have the feeling that you know much more
> about the problematics of a Lisp interpreter than me as I have only
> started discovering them once I stumble on them while trying to run
> the samples provided in the reference books that I use (ANSI COmmon
> Lisp and Practical Common Lisp). For example I even don't fully
> understand what you mean by "distinction between host and target" and
> also I have currently no idea on how to implement the compiler in a
> Lispy way.
Go buy and read "L.i.S.P'!
"Lisp in Small Pieces" -- Christian Queinnec
http://books.google.fr/books?id=iCrrcMA6TYwC&dq=lisp+in+small+pieces&pg=PP1&ots=-aK3CO-rNZ&sig=GdkANuXUZUk8NdfNy3f_H9YrB0A&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
http://www.amazon.com/Lisp-Small-Pieces-Christian-Queinnec/dp/0521562473
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On 21 juil, 14:27, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> ··········@yahoo.fr writes:
> > From your detailed answer I have the feeling that you know much more
> > about the problematics of a Lisp interpreter than me as I have only
> > started discovering them once I stumble on them while trying to run
> > the samples provided in the reference books that I use (ANSI COmmon
> > Lisp and Practical Common Lisp). For example I even don't fully
> > understand what you mean by "distinction between host and target" and
> > also I have currently no idea on how to implement the compiler in a
> > Lispy way.
>
> Go buy and read "L.i.S.P'!
>
> "Lisp in Small Pieces" -- Christian Queinnechttp://books.google.fr/books?id=iCrrcMA6TYwC&dq=lisp+in+small+pieces&...http://www.amazon.com/Lisp-Small-Pieces-Christian-Queinnec/dp/0521562473
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__
Hello
Thanks for the advice, I have already found this book but thought it
was only the kind of book which explains "how to implement lisp in
lisp" (which won't help me as I'm learning Lisp at the same time I
implement the interpreter) seems not to be the case and anyway it may
be useful for the concepts regarding compilation
··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> Thanks for the advice, I have already found this book but thought it
> was only the kind of book which explains "how to implement lisp in
> lisp" (which won't help me as I'm learning Lisp at the same time I
> implement the interpreter)
It would help you more than you apparently can imagine at the moment.
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> wrote:
+---------------
| ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
| > Thanks for the advice, I have already found this book but thought it
| > was only the kind of book which explains "how to implement lisp in
| > lisp" (which won't help me as I'm learning Lisp at the same time I
| > implement the interpreter)
|
| It would help you more than you apparently can imagine at the moment.
+---------------
I second that: L.i.S.P. is *required* reading for anyone
who aspires to become a Lisp (or Scheme) implementer, IMHO.
Also, don't focus too much on interpreters per se. Lisp/Scheme
interpreters are a dime a dozen -- worse, there are literally
*dozens* of free, open-source, high-quality ones out there already
[not to mention quite a number of fine commercial ones], see
<http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq-standards#implementations>
and <http://www.cliki.net/Common%20Lisp%20implementation> and
<http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation>, just for starters.
But if you have any hope whatsoever for eventual commercial success
[and, frankly, you are currently a *LOOOooonnggg* way from that!], then
you *MUST* be able to compile to either native machine code (preferred)
or some relatively high-performance VM, such as Java or .NET.
Oh, and did I mention there are already *dozens* of free, open-source,
high-quality Lisp/Scheme compilers out there already [not to mention
quite a number of fine commercial ones], see above three URLs. ;-} ;-}
Anyway, you should probably think about compiling from the beginning.
Besides the chapters in L.i.S.P., also be sure to read this:
http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/11-ghuloum.pdf
"An Incremental Approach to Compiler Construction"
Abdulaziz Ghuloum
2006 Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
In article <································@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> wrote:
> +---------------
> | ··········@yahoo.fr wrote:
> | > Thanks for the advice, I have already found this book but thought it
> | > was only the kind of book which explains "how to implement lisp in
> | > lisp" (which won't help me as I'm learning Lisp at the same time I
> | > implement the interpreter)
> |
> | It would help you more than you apparently can imagine at the moment.
> +---------------
>
> I second that: L.i.S.P. is *required* reading for anyone
> who aspires to become a Lisp (or Scheme) implementer, IMHO.
>
> Also, don't focus too much on interpreters per se. Lisp/Scheme
> interpreters are a dime a dozen -- worse, there are literally
> *dozens* of free, open-source, high-quality ones out there already
> [not to mention quite a number of fine commercial ones], see
> <http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq-standards#implementations>
> and <http://www.cliki.net/Common%20Lisp%20implementation> and
> <http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation>, just for starters.
>
> But if you have any hope whatsoever for eventual commercial success
> [and, frankly, you are currently a *LOOOooonnggg* way from that!], then
> you *MUST* be able to compile to either native machine code (preferred)
> or some relatively high-performance VM, such as Java or .NET.
>
> Oh, and did I mention there are already *dozens* of free, open-source,
> high-quality Lisp/Scheme compilers out there already [not to mention
> quite a number of fine commercial ones], see above three URLs. ;-} ;-}
It's fascinating that there are still interesting new Scheme (Lisp, too)
implementations.
http://code.google.com/p/ypsilon/
Ypsilon Scheme, developed for the LittleWing Pinball Construction System (!!!)
or
Ikarus Scheme
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~aghuloum/ikarus/
The entry barrier for Common Lisp is a bit higher, but for
the Lisp library/language level, lots of code can be taken
from existing Public Domain implementations.
For many purposes it would not be that interesting to do
a new implementation of Common Lisp, but to do a new
port of an existing one.
Currently I think the biggest gap in the native compiled
Common Lisp world is a native compiler to the ARM processor.
I know no native code compiler for the ARM processor.
Why is that? I find that kind of surprising. Is the ARM
processor kind of problematic for Lisp?
There are lots of machines running on ARM:
http://www.arm.com/markets/mobile_solutions/app.html
http://www.arm.com/markets/home_solutions/app.html
(I should mention that it should be possible to use
some non-native-compiled Common Lisp on ARM).
>
> Anyway, you should probably think about compiling from the beginning.
> Besides the chapters in L.i.S.P., also be sure to read this:
>
> http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/11-ghuloum.pdf
> "An Incremental Approach to Compiler Construction"
> Abdulaziz Ghuloum
> 2006 Scheme and Functional Programming Workshop
>
>
> -Rob
>
> -----
> Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
+---------------
| Currently I think the biggest gap in the native compiled
| Common Lisp world is a native compiler to the ARM processor.
| I know no native code compiler for the ARM processor.
| Why is that? I find that kind of surprising. Is the ARM
| processor kind of problematic for Lisp?
+---------------
Not the processor, no. At a recent PPoE, I did some embedded
coding on an XScale (Intel's ARM5+extras) in a combination of
C & assembler. It's a pretty darned clean machine. I liked
programming in ARM assembler almost as much as the DEC PDP-10.
[That's high praise from me, FWIW. ;-} ]
+---------------
| There are lots of machines running on ARM:
| http://www.arm.com/markets/mobile_solutions/app.html
| http://www.arm.com/markets/home_solutions/app.html
|
| (I should mention that it should be possible to use
| some non-native-compiled Common Lisp on ARM).
+---------------
I suspect it's not the ARM per se, but the kind of *system*
people tend to put ARMs into that's the issue for CL. It's
probably the case that a basic "cold load" of a typical full
CL would stress the memory limits of most of those platforms...
and then memory usage goes up from there once you start running.
But it's an interesting idea. [Hmmm... CMUCL on an ARM... Yum! ;-} ]
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
[...]
> +---------------
> | There are lots of machines running on ARM:
> | http://www.arm.com/markets/mobile_solutions/app.html
> | http://www.arm.com/markets/home_solutions/app.html
> |
> | (I should mention that it should be possible to use
> | some non-native-compiled Common Lisp on ARM).
> +---------------
>
> I suspect it's not the ARM per se, but the kind of *system*
> people tend to put ARMs into that's the issue for CL. It's
> probably the case that a basic "cold load" of a typical full
> CL would stress the memory limits of most of those platforms...
> and then memory usage goes up from there once you start running.
>
> But it's an interesting idea. [Hmmm... CMUCL on an ARM... Yum! ;-} ]
The ARM-based gizmo in my pocket has 256M of RAM, plus 10G of file
system. Is that enough for CMUCL? (I know clisp runs on it, but I
haven't been able to sort the dependencies.)
Next question is just what smart things you'd want to do in CL on a
device of that size.
paul
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
> Rob Warnock wrote:
>> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> [...]
>> +---------------
>> | There are lots of machines running on ARM:
>> | http://www.arm.com/markets/mobile_solutions/app.html
>> | http://www.arm.com/markets/home_solutions/app.html
>> | | (I should mention that it should be possible to use
>> | some non-native-compiled Common Lisp on ARM).
>> +---------------
>> I suspect it's not the ARM per se, but the kind of *system*
>> people tend to put ARMs into that's the issue for CL. It's
>> probably the case that a basic "cold load" of a typical full
>> CL would stress the memory limits of most of those platforms...
>> and then memory usage goes up from there once you start running.
>> But it's an interesting idea. [Hmmm... CMUCL on an ARM... Yum! ;-} ]
>
> The ARM-based gizmo in my pocket has 256M of RAM, plus 10G of file
> system. Is that enough for CMUCL? (I know clisp runs on it, but I
> haven't been able to sort the dependencies.)
>
> Next question is just what smart things you'd want to do in CL on a
> device of that size.
For example, there's a rooster that's singing almost all day long in
the district. I would build a little robot with a PDA running clisp for
the IA, to scout and kill that bitch.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
In article <································@speakeasy.net>,
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Currently I think the biggest gap in the native compiled
> | Common Lisp world is a native compiler to the ARM processor.
> | I know no native code compiler for the ARM processor.
> | Why is that? I find that kind of surprising. Is the ARM
> | processor kind of problematic for Lisp?
> +---------------
>
> Not the processor, no. At a recent PPoE, I did some embedded
> coding on an XScale (Intel's ARM5+extras) in a combination of
> C & assembler. It's a pretty darned clean machine. I liked
> programming in ARM assembler almost as much as the DEC PDP-10.
> [That's high praise from me, FWIW. ;-} ]
>
> +---------------
> | There are lots of machines running on ARM:
> | http://www.arm.com/markets/mobile_solutions/app.html
> | http://www.arm.com/markets/home_solutions/app.html
> |
> | (I should mention that it should be possible to use
> | some non-native-compiled Common Lisp on ARM).
> +---------------
>
> I suspect it's not the ARM per se, but the kind of *system*
> people tend to put ARMs into that's the issue for CL. It's
> probably the case that a basic "cold load" of a typical full
> CL would stress the memory limits of most of those platforms...
> and then memory usage goes up from there once you start running.
Though I think there are some that have 'lots' of RAM.
The Nokia N810 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N810 )
and the Apple iPhone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone )
both have 128 MB RAM. I think the iPhone allows applications
to use upto 64MB RAM.
>
> But it's an interesting idea. [Hmmm... CMUCL on an ARM... Yum! ;-} ]
;-)
>
>
> -Rob
>
> -----
> Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
P� Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:37:27 +0200, skrev <··········@yahoo.fr>:
> On 21 juil, 14:27, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>> ··········@yahoo.fr writes:
>> > From your detailed answer I have the feeling that you know much more
>> > about the problematics of a Lisp interpreter than me as I have only
>> > started discovering them once I stumble on them while trying to run
>> > the samples provided in the reference books that I use (ANSI COmmon
>> > Lisp and Practical Common Lisp). For example I even don't fully
>> > understand what you mean by "distinction between host and target" and
>> > also I have currently no idea on how to implement the compiler �in a
>> > Lispy way.
>>
>> Go buy and read "L.i.S.P'!
>>
>> "Lisp in Small Pieces" -- Christian
>> Queinnechttp://books.google.fr/books?id=iCrrcMA6TYwC&dq=lisp+in+small+pieces&...http://www.amazon.com/Lisp-Small-Pieces-Christian-Queinnec/dp/0521562473
>>
>> --
>> __Pascal Bourguignon__
>
> Hello
>
> Thanks for the advice, I have already found this book but thought it
> was only the kind of book which explains "how to implement lisp in
> lisp" (which won't help me as I'm learning Lisp at the same time I
> implement the interpreter) seems not to be the case and anyway it may
> be useful for the concepts regarding compilation
Lisp is metacircular. That is it is defined in itself.
That said Lisp In Small Pieces describes (eventually) how to make a
compiler that compiles to C.
Note that C is defined in C as well..
--------------
John Thingstad