factor from the POV of a lisper
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: common-lisp.net?
Next: anyone using lisp on gumstix?
From: Tamas K Papp on 21 Jan 2010 08:19 On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:06:53 +0100, Nicolas Neuss wrote: > Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> I am looking for comments on what Common Lispers [2] think about >> Factor. What does the concatenative paradigm offer that is different? >> Is it possible/worthwhile to adopt anything from that into CL, perhaps >> as a DSL for certain problems? > > I probably have looked less carefully then you, but it looks as if it is > the natural successor to Forth, no? > > Maybe a Forth-like DSL could be interesting, but I have the impression > that a stack-based language like Forth lives from the fact that most > (all?) functions have a fixed arity. This does not work well together > with the CL way of functions having optional and keyword arguments. That's what I thought initially. But it appears that you can do keyword parameters quite "naturally" with a tuple: http://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20language/Keyword%20parameters I can't pin down why, the but whole language just feels very "lispy". Tamas
From: Nicolas Neuss on 21 Jan 2010 09:02 Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> writes: > That's what I thought initially. But it appears that you can do > keyword parameters quite "naturally" with a tuple: > > http://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20language/Keyword%20parameters Indeed, this looks almost like CL syntax reversed:-) > I can't pin down why, the but whole language just feels very "lispy". I guess it is the uniform syntax. A Factor2CL syntax converter macro would probably be a nice exercise for newbies. Nicolas
From: mdj on 21 Jan 2010 09:12 On Jan 21, 7:45 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Tamas K Papp <7rqiasF9v...(a)mid.individual.net> : > Wrote on 21 Jan 2010 08:42:04 GMT: > > | On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:34:05 -0800, vippstar wrote: > | > |> On Jan 20, 4:34 pm, Tamas K Papp wrote: > |>> Please understand that this is not flamebait... > |> > |> No, it couldn't even be that. > | > | Indeed. That is a pity: I have seen good discussions here about > | languages which are not nearly as interesting as > > Gavino does this much better than you. And it's not unsurprising to see you doing what you do best
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 21 Jan 2010 09:40 On 2010-01-21 08:19:22 -0500, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> said: > I can't pin down why, the but whole language just feels very "lispy". What you really want to do is rope Duane Rettig into a discussion of the lispiness of Forth and forth-like languages, but there's a good chance that Duane is biting his tongue here for fear of wandering into a usenet time sink. This and other posts in the thread will give you an idea of his thinking: <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/983a999856ccb6f8?hl=en> -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Pillsy on 21 Jan 2010 10:20
On Jan 21, 8:19 am, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > I can't pin down why, the but whole language just feels very "lispy". One thing I've noticed is that it looks like it's dedicated to providing the sorts of amenities you get with a mature Lisp system, and that you all too often don't get with "modern" dynamically typed languages that were designed by mutation from a "scripting language" ancestor. I don't have much interest in the language itself[1], but the overall philosophy of providing a fully-featured development environment with a good optimizing compiler is very appealing. Cheers, Pillsy [1] Not due to any evident shortcomings, but because the whole "stack- based" thing just doesn't appeal to me. |