On 05/10/2010 05:36, salil wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:38 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
The /most/ correct version of maximum() function is probably one written
in Haskell as:
maximum :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer
maximum a b = if a> b then a else b
Integer in Haskell has infinite precision (like python'
On 30/09/2010 08:09, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
That argument can be made for dynamic language as well. If you write in
dynamic language (e.g. python):
def maximum(a, b):
return a if a> b else b
The dynamic language's version of maximum() function is 100% correct --
if you passed an unco
On 12/06/2010 19:36, bolega wrote:
Is there anything in this old
norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?
http://norvig.com/paip.html
This "old" book by Peter Norvig is still one of the best Common Lisp
introductions you can find, and has some excellent material that is not
cover
On 12/06/2010 19:36, bolega wrote:
What was your main reason for picking the Allegro (commercial) as
opposed to one of the open source ones ? Is there anything in this old
norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?
http://norvig.com/paip.html
My favorite Common Lisp environment is L
On 10/06/2010 23:51, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
bolega writes:
Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
world programming ?
What's the real world?
What's real world programming?
I guess somebody's just enjoying flame wars too much.
Pascal
--
My website: ht
Dynamic Languages Symposium 2010
October 18, 2010
Co-located with SPLASH (OOPSLA) 2010
In cooperation with ACM SIGPLAN
John Ascuaga's Nugget, Reno/Tahoe, Nevada, USA
http://www.dynamic-languages-symposium.org/dls-10/
* Call for papers *
The 6th Dynamic Languages Symposium (DLS) at the
Xah Lee wrote:
Pascal Constanza is a Common Lisp fanatic.
It's Costanza, not Constanza.
Thank you,
Pascal
--
ELS'09: http://www.european-lisp-symposium.org/
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/
Jon Harrop wrote:
> It is worth noting that eager, statically-typed languages like OCaml and F#
> are many times faster than the other languages at this task. This is
> precisely the forte of OCaml and F#, manipulating trees and graphs.
Here is a page that sums up some important observations abou
Fuzzyman wrote:
> On May 2, 8:20 pm, Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sturlamolden wrote:
>>> On Monday Microsoft announced a new runtime for dynamic languages,
>>> which they call "DLR". It sits on top of the conventional .NET runtime
>&
sturlamolden wrote:
> On Monday Microsoft announced a new runtime for dynamic languages,
> which they call "DLR". It sits on top of the conventional .NET runtime
> (CLR) and provides services for dynamically typed languages like
> Python or Lisp (thus the cross-posting). Apparently is is distribut
Converge is a Python-style language with a macro facility. See
http://convergepl.org/
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/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth
electronically at
http://www.dcl.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/dls2007/ in PDF format.
Submissions must not exceed 12 pages and need to use the ACM format,
templates for which can be found at
http://www.acm.org/sigs/pubs/proceed/template.html.
Program chairs:
***
* Pascal Costanza, Programming Technology
Paul Rubin wrote:
> jayessay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> It's simply that newer language designs by definition have more of an
>>> experience base to build on than older ones, if the designers care to
>>> make use of it.
>> Agreed. Indeed, that was the underlying guiding principle in putting
>
Pillsy wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> [...]
>> That was my stance for about seven years of intense Lisp. Then the
>> author of Practical Common Lisp did a nice job of breaking the whole
>> mess up into sensible chunks and I picked it up. If one programs Lisp,
>> one should learn Loop -- it is definit
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can start with loop by using only the simple and straightforward
>> constructs, and slowly move towards the more complicated cases when
>> necessary. The nice thing about loop is that with some prac
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> May you have tried the wrong Lisp dialects so far:
>>
>> (loop for i from 2 to 10 by 2
>>do (print i))
>
> The loop language is so complicated and confusing that I never
> bother
I V wrote:
> One of the things I've always found off-putting about lisp as that all the
> syntax looks the same. In Algol-derived languages, each syntactic
> construct has a fairly distinctive appearance, so when, for instance, I
> encounter a for loop, I can quickly recognize that that's what it
Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :)
>> it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS.
>
> It's not enough to convert to CPS, you have to be able to actually
> save the conti
Ken Tilton wrote:
> What is up the power continuum from Lisp?
3-Lisp. ;)
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/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kay Schluehr wrote:
>> Please, since this is a Python+Lisp cross-thread and you seem to have
>> background info: can you explain why Lisp hackers have turned
>> themselves into Python newbies for Reddit impl. and finally complain
>> about the language switch? What was cau
Matthias Blume wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> And I am convinced that updating a running system in the style of,
>>> e.g., Erlang, can be statically typed.
>> Maybe. The interesting question then is whether you can express the
Matthias Blume wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Whether you consider something you cannot do with statically typed
>> languages a bad idea or not is irrelevant. You were asking for things
>> that you cannot do with statically typed lang
David Hopwood wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> David Hopwood wrote:
>>> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>>> David Hopwood wrote:
>>>>> Marshall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The real question is, are there some programs that we
>
David Hopwood wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> David Hopwood wrote:
>>> Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>>> The real question is, are there some programs that we
>>>> can't write *at all* in a statically typed language, because
>>>> they&
Marshall wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>> Marshall wrote:
>> It isn't clear to me which programs we would have to give up, either.
>> I don't have much experience in sophisticated typed languages. It is
>> rather easy to find programs that baffle an unsophisticated typed
>> language (C, C++, Java,
David Hopwood wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>> The real question is, are there some programs that we
>> can't write *at all* in a statically typed language, because
>> they'll *never* be typable?
>
> In a statically typed language that has a "dynamic" type, all
> dynamically typed programs are straight
Marshall wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Consider division by zero: appropriate arguments for division are
>> numbers, including the zero.
>
> A bold assertion!
>
> The general question is, what do we do about partial functions?
>
>
>> The dynamic
Chris Smith wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Clearly, in this example, the program
>>> is invoking an operation (division) on values that are not appropriate
>>> (zero for the second argument). Hence, if your definition really is a
&g
Chris Smith wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris Smith wrote:
>>> Of course zero is not appropriate as a second argument to the division
>>> operator! I can't possibly see how you could claim that it is. The
>>> only
Chris Smith wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Consider division by zero: appropriate arguments for division are
>> numbers, including the zero. The dynamic type check will typically not
>> check whether the second argument is zero, but will cou
David Hopwood wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Chris Smith wrote:
>>
>>> While this effort to salvage the term "type error" in dynamic
>>> languages is interesting, I fear it will fail. Either we'll all have
>>> to admit that "typ
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Andreas Rossberg schrieb:
>>
>> Luca Cardelli has given the most convincing one in his seminal
>> tutorial "Type Systems", where he identifies "typed" and "safe" as two
>> orthogonal dimensions and gives the following matrix:
>>
>> | typed | untyped
>>
Marshall wrote:
> Anton van Straaten wrote:
>> But beyond that, there's an issue here about the definition of "the
>> language". When programming in a latently-typed language, a lot of
>> action goes on outside the language - reasoning about static properties
>> of programs that are not captured b
Chris Uppal wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>> Sorry, obviously I was far from being clear. ACL2 is not
>> Turing-complete. All iterations must be expressed in terms of
>> well-founded recursion.
>
> How expressive does that end up being for real problems ?
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Matthias Blume wrote:
>>> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>>> Vesa Karvonen wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> An
Matthias Blume wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> Vesa Karvonen wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> An example of a form of informal reasoning that (practically) every
>>>> programmer does dail
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Vesa Karvonen wrote:
> ...
>> An example of a form of informal reasoning that (practically) every
>> programmer does daily is termination analysis. There are type systems
>> that guarantee termination, but I think that is fair to say that it is
>> not
>> yet understood
Vesa Karvonen wrote:
> In comp.lang.functional Anton van Straaten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> I reject this comparison. There's much more to it than that. The point
>> is that the reasoning which programmers perform when working with an
>> program in a latently-typed language bears ma
Marshall wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>> That's the important point: I want to run broken code.
>
> I want to make sure I understand. I can think of several things
> you might mean by this. It could be:
> 1) I want to run my program, even though I know parts of it
> are broken, because I think th
Marshall wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Consider a simple expression like 'a + b': In a dynamically typed
>> language, all I need to have in mind is that the program will attempt to
>> add two numbers. In a statically typed language, I additionally need to
>
Marshall wrote:
> I am sceptical of the idea that when programming in a dynamically
> typed language one doesn't have to think about both models as well.
> I don't have a good model of the mental process of working
> in a dynamically typed language, but how could that be the case?
> (I'm not askin
Chris Smith wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What about this: You get a type error when the program attempts to
>> invoke an operation on values that are not appropriate for this operation.
>>
>> Examples: adding numbers to strings; d
Matthias Blume wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Chris Smith wrote:
>>
>>> While this effort to salvage the term "type error" in dynamic
>>> languages is interesting, I fear it will fail. Either we'll al
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>
>> Consider a simple expression like 'a + b': In a dynamically typed
>> language, all I need to have in mind is that the program will attempt
>> to add two numbers. In a statically typed language, I addition
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A statically type language requires you to think about two models of
>
>> your program at the same time: the static type model and the dynamic
>> behavioral model. A static type system ensures that these two
>> _different_ (that's important!) perspectives are always i
Chris Smith wrote:
> While this effort to salvage the term "type error" in dynamic languages
> is interesting, I fear it will fail. Either we'll all have to admit
> that "type" in the dynamic sense is a psychological concept with no
> precise technical definition (as was at least hinted by Ant
David Hopwood wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>> Chris Smith wrote:
>>> Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
I think what this highlights is the fact that our existing terminology
is not up to the task of representing all the possible design
choices we could make. Some parts of dynamic v
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Pascal Costanza schrieb:
>> (It's really important to understand that the idea is to use this for
>> deployed programs - albeit hopefully in a more structured fashion -
>> and not only for debugging. The example I have given is an extr
David Hopwood wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>>> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>>> Matthias Blume wrote:
>>>>> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (slot-value p 'address)
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Matthias Blume wrote:
>>> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> (slot-value p 'address) is an attempt to access the field 'address in
>>>> the object p. In many languages, the no
Matthias Blume wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> - In a dynamically typed language, you can run programs successfully
>> that are not acceptable by static type systems.
>
> This statement is false.
The example I have given is more importa
Marshall wrote:
> The conversation I would *really* like to have is the one where we
> discuss what all the differences are, functionally, between the two,
> and what the implications of those differences are, without trying
> to address which approach is "right" or "better", because those are
> d
Chris Smith wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Types can be represented at runtime via type tags. You could insist on
>> using the term "dynamically tagged languages", but this wouldn't change
>> a lot. Exactly _because_ it doesn'
Matthias Blume wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I don't think dynamic typing is that nebulous. I remember this being
>> discussed elsewhere some time ago, I'll post the same reply I did then
>> ..
>>
>>
>> A language is statically typed if a variable has a property - called
Chris Smith wrote:
> Torben Ægidius Mogensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's not really the difference between static and dynamic typing.
>> Static typing means that there exist a typing at compile-time that
>> guarantess against run-time type violations. Dynamic typing means
>> that such vio
Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
>
>>> So while it may take longer to get a program that gets
>>> past the compiler, it takes less time to get a program that works.
>> Th
Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
>>
>>> On a similar note, is a statically typed langauge more or less
>>> expressive than a dynamically typed language? Some would sa
Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
>> On 2006-06-14 16:36:52 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> In lisp, all lists are homogenous: lists of T.
>> CL-USER 123 > (loop for elt in (list #\c 1 2.0d0 (/
Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
>>
>>> On a similar note, is a statically typed langauge more or less
>>> expressive than a dynamically typed language? Some would say
Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> On a similar note, is a statically typed langauge more or less
> expressive than a dynamically typed language? Some would say less, as
> you can write programs in a dynamically typed language that you can't
> compile in a statically typed language (without a lot o
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
>> To sort a list in Python, use the “sort” method. For example:
>>
>> li=[1,9,2,3];
>> li.sort();
>> print li;
>
> Likewise in Common Lisp. In Scheme there are probably packages for that
> as well. My apologies for not being very fluent anymore.
>
>
alex goldman wrote:
> John McGrath wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, there is no
>>consensus as to what the term means.
>
> If the language allows the programmer to write programs from the 'slack'
> domain, by saying "just trust me on this", then it's not strongly typed.
>
> What other meanings are ther
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
(defun addn (n)
#'(lambda (x)
(+ x n)))
The same as
def addn(n):
def fn(x):
return n + x
return fn
Is this really equivalent?
What happens if you call addn more than once with different
paramet
63 matches
Mail list logo
