Re: Lisp in hardware

From: Alexander Burger (abu_at_software-lab.de)
Date: 08/09/04 

Date: 9 Aug 2004 17:00:44 GMT

Matthew Danish <mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:09:34PM +0000, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > Julian Stecklina <der_julian@web.de> wrote:
> > > Alexander Burger <abu@software-lab.de> writes:
> > - and inefficient execution (because the interpreter will run with a
> > lexical binding strategy to stay compatible with the (now unused)
> > compiler. Lexical binding is not efficient in an interpreter).

> Where do you get this nonsense from? You realize that people have known
> how to implement lexical scope in an interpreter for over 30 years,
> right? It's very easy, and hardly inefficient. It's just a matter of

Of course it can be implemented. But how fast does it run?

As I tried to explain in the papers and previous postings (obviously you
didn't read them), I hate to put stress on raw speed. But if you insist,
please show me a Lisp interpreter faster than Pico Lisp, regarding the
bare evaluation mechanism.

> Using symbols instead of strings is like using a hammer to type on the
> keyboard. Lispers stopped doing stuff like this 20 years ago. Strings
> and symbols have different purposes.

What I want to do is apply the rich set of lisp functions in the Lisp
language to as many data manipulations as possible. So it is just fine
to convert a symbol to a list and back. What is bad with uniformity?

> > To bring more fun to programming.

> I think you have not considered the true implications of lexical scope
> and closures. I think you find that a lot of your ridiculous hacks are
> unnecessary, for example, that ability to introduce small fragments of
> code into the running program (for GUI or whatnot). This is something

Please don't judge about things you don't understand.
(Read the background in http://software-lab.de/dbui.html)

If CL is so flexible, please provide a solution to

   http://software-lab.de/succ.html

then. Everybody says its soo easy, but nobody's doing it.
I'm still waiting ...

- Alex 

-- 
   Software Lab. Alexander Burger
   Bahnhofstr. 24a, D-86462 Langweid
   abu@software-lab.de, http://www.software-lab.de, +49 821 9907090

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lisp in hardware
    ... contact with Lisp was nearly 20 years ago. ... at that time used dynamic binding for the interpreter and lexical ... binding for the compiler, introducing significant differences. ... Lexical binding is not efficient in an interpreter). ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Lisp in hardware
    ... > interpreter and lexical binding for the compiler, ... > lexical binding strategy to stay compatible with the ... Lexical binding is not efficient in an interpreter). ... So you've never tried any current Lisp implementation, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Lisp in hardware
    ... >> that the usual interpreter also walks over the internal representation ... > Dynamic binding is very fast in a Lisp interpreter. ... Lexical binding often is seen as less error prone, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Personal project, extending Scheme to OOP
    ... You don't know enough Common Lisp then! ... you must use the namespace operator: ... performance advantages (at least for an interpreter). ... with interpreted code it'll be much slower than with compiled code. ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)
  • Re: Lisp in hardware
    ... It's very easy, and hardly inefficient. ... Just as fast as any interpreter can. ... > please show me a Lisp interpreter faster than Pico Lisp, ... > language to as many data manipulations as possible. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)