>>6 Wouldn't it be more homoiconic to write it instead of relying on C?
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-18 11:53
>>8 It would be homoiconic to use a homoiconic language. I think the term you're looking for is self-hosting compiler. The reason why Lisp compilers are written in C is because the C language model follows after the von Neumann model of computer architecture and because C was pretty much the only systems language that was worth using for many decades.
C was pretty much the only systems language that was worth using for many decades.
That's wrong. C was (and still is) one of the lowest quality systems languages. That's why it was called portable assembly. Most programming languages were more portable than C. Lisp and FP helped make C popular because it was used for their runtimes and interpreters.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-18 12:26
I think the term you're looking for is self-hosting compiler.
No. Scheme which is internally a C-based VM is less homoiconic than Scheme expressed in form of Scheme functions.
Lisp and FP helped make C popular
Somehow this obscure fact is never referenced in any book.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-18 12:49
Lisp ain't ever coming back.
Scheme/Racket or modern Lisp-likes may enjoy some use here and there, but it'll never become popular again.
But do you really want Lisp to become a meme language again, and attract all of the flies to the dung heap like Rust is currently doing, or like C# did last decade. Be thankful Lisp is bandwagon no longer.
Somehow this obscure fact is never referenced in any book.
just ignore it. I guess this was posted by the same retard who keeps calling everything 'scam' and complaining how functional programming ruined the concept of 'undefined'
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-18 14:06
>>10 C is very suitable as a language for writing operating systems. Its programming and computer architecture paradigm makes it suitable for writing language compilers that translate source code into object code. This is the reason why C is dominant as a systems language. It was only in the last decade that newer systems languages started popping up that would allow OS programmers and compiler programmers the direct control that they would need for their work.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-18 14:12
>>12 Some Lisp stuff is crossing over to mainstream, but very few take the baggage of embedding a lisp interpreter inside. Lisp is not the best language ever. Its probably one of most expressive forms of code, but it doesn't make the resulting programs somehow superior to blub-based enterprise solutions that answer customers demands and provide a critical advantage to take your software stack to the next level.
Most programming languages were more portable than C.
Not if you're talking about ANSI C. Earlier programming languages were poorly standardized if at all, and even if standardized implementations existed across platforms, they still didn't support as many platforms as C. There was such a notion as ``Standard FORTRAN", but FORTRAN was only intended to run on proper computers, not any random device with Turing-complete logic circuits (what today are referred to as ``embedded systems"). It also wasn't really adequate as a systems programming language because it lacked pointers. Some considered Pascal an acceptable alternative to C, however it too lacked pointers and was poorly standardized.
Scheme which is internally a C-based VM is less homoiconic than Scheme expressed in form of Scheme functions.
Uh, no? Homoiconicity has to do with code and data being interchangeable, it has nothing to do with how the interpreter/compiler is implemented. That's like saying Lisp is insufficiently homoiconic because the processor it runs on was designed using VHDL instead of s-expressions.
That's like saying Lisp is insufficiently homoiconic because the processor it runs on was designed using VHDL instead of s-expressions.
I guess you missed all the threads which devolved into Lisp machines and their hardware superiority over C Processing Units. People actually argued the decline of Lisp is because of PC and x86 being dictated by C features, which is suboptimal for something thats suppose to be run on a lisp machine(e.g. without the "nasty" tag bits)
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-18 19:59
>>21 The PC and x86 weren't designed for C features at all.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-19 5:01
>>21 C IS THE ANVIL *HITS C WITH A HAMMER* LISP IS THE SWORD *SLICES THROUGH A SANDWICH*
And now kids I will tell you about the story of Haskell, the dead nomadic dog.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-19 22:48
>>26 I'd rather have the story than some crap about the story.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-20 1:38
>>24 What part of C maps to x86's segmentation? Every new feature added in the 286 and 386 was even less similar to C and could not be used by C compilers.
>>30 That's C being perverted to support x86, not a sign that x86 was designed for C. Probably the only real "C machine" was the PDP-11 and maybe the VAX-11 as those were where C evolved, all later development was focused on keeping the C language simple and generic enough that it wouldn't depend on any processor features (which also meant those features, if present couldn't be taken advantage of without an aggressive optimizer or using assembly subroutines). x86 on the other hand was originally developed for assembly programmers with the complicated features included to facilitate multi-tasking (which goes against the C assumption of no MMU).
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-20 17:22
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 I claim these dubz in the name of the United States of America 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-20 17:31
>>33 Please remember to check your Unicode privilege.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-20 23:18
>>30-32 C was designed for byte-addressed machines with a flat address space, but it still doesn't take advantage of most of the features of the hardware.