experchange > lisp

Azathoth Hastur (11-13-19, 06:00 AM)


how hard say?
taruss (11-13-19, 08:40 PM)
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
>
> how hard say?


$1-5 million.
Azathoth Hastur (11-16-19, 09:31 AM)
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:40:59 PM UTC-5, tar...@google.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> >
> > how hard say?

> $1-5 million.


no no as free software
taruss (11-18-19, 08:36 PM)
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 11:32:03 PM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:40:59 PM UTC-5, tar...@google.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> > >
> > > how hard say?

> > $1-5 million.

> no no as free software


You could try a pilot project by generating Lisp bindings to the Unreal Engine.
Marco Antoniotti (11-20-19, 04:14 PM)
On 2019-11-18 18:36:03 +0000, taruss said:

> On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 11:32:03 PM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> You could try a pilot project by generating Lisp bindings to the Unreal Engine.


Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?

Cheers
Udyant Wig (11-21-19, 10:54 AM)
On 11/20/19 7:44 PM, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?


Random GC?
Azathoth Hastur (11-22-19, 06:10 PM)
On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 3:54:50 AM UTC-5, Udyant Wig wrote:
> On 11/20/19 7:44 PM, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> > Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?

> Random GC?


doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
taruss (11-22-19, 10:27 PM)
On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 3:54:50 AM UTC-5, Udyant Wig wrote:
> > On 11/20/19 7:44 PM, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> > > Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?

> > Random GC?

> doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?


Only for the last 40 years.

But I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.
Kaz Kylheku (11-22-19, 10:55 PM)
On 2019-11-22, taruss <taruss> wrote:
>> doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?

> Only for the last 40 years.


I think well over 50, no?
Azathoth Hastur (11-23-19, 12:23 AM)
On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 3:27:48 PM UTC-5, tar...@google.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> Only for the last 40 years.
> But I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.


sure it is
guy mentioned garbage colelction
Alan Bawden (11-23-19, 01:48 AM)
Kaz Kylheku <493-878-3164> writes:

> On 2019-11-22, taruss <taruss> wrote:
> >> doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?

> > Only for the last 40 years.

> I think well over 50, no?


Maybe even 60. According to McCarthy's "History of Lisp" paper, they
started work on a compiler in the Fall of 1958, so there _might_ have been
something you could call a compiler by the Fall of 1959, 60 years ago. The
"Lisp 1.5 Reference Manual", published in 1962, discusses the compiler, so
there was _certainly_ a compiler by 57 years ago.
taruss (11-23-19, 02:56 AM)
On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 2:24:00 PM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 3:27:48 PM UTC-5, tar...@google.com wrote:
> sure it is
> guy mentioned garbage colelction


Why would compiling to machine code be relevant to whether there is GC or not?
Consider:
Common Lisp: compiles to machine code (generally) and has GC
Python: does not compile to machine code and has GC
C++: compiles to machine code and does not have GC
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.

Kaz: Yes, 50 years is more like it.
You're making me feel old :)
Alan: You're not helping :)
Jeff Barnett (11-23-19, 03:13 AM)
taruss wrote on 11/22/2019 5:56 PM:
> On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 2:24:00 PM UTC-8, Azathoth Hastur wrote:
> Why would compiling to machine code be relevant to whether there is GC or not?
> Consider:
> Common Lisp: compiles to machine code (generally) and has GC
> Python: does not compile to machine code and has GC
> C++: compiles to machine code and does not have GC
> I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.


Interpretive BASIC?

> Kaz: Yes, 50 years is more like it.
> You're making me feel old :)
> Alan: You're not helping :)


There were many many compiled Lisps by 1965: MIT, BBN, SDC, etc.
Further, (D)ARPA had let their Lisp 2 contract by that time - an attempt
to achieve an efficient Lisp + Algol amalgam - and work was underway.
Paul Rubin (11-23-19, 03:27 AM)
taruss writes:
> I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.


Forth, traditionally implemented by threaded interpreter.
Kaz Kylheku (11-23-19, 08:53 AM)
On 2019-11-23, taruss <taruss> wrote:
> I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.


Awk? Shells? Forth? ...?

Some BASICs I worked with in the 80-s had GC for strings, but it was not
a semantic requirement for their correct implementation; it just
simplified their implementation and defragmented their memory use.

Similar Threads