On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:13:02 PM UTC-6, MRAB wrote:
>
> The Z80's architecture and instruction set is a superset of that of the
> 8080; the 6502's architecture and instruction set isn't a superset of,
> or even compatible with, that of the 6800 (although it can use the same
> I/O, etc, chips)
On 2014-03-07 01:53, Mark H. Harris wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:28:58 PM UTC-6, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
The 6502 was NOT a Motorola chip (they had the 6800). The 6502 was MOS
That's funny... did you not see what I wrote back to MRAB? Here:
The MOS 6502 is to the Motorola
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:28:58 PM UTC-6, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
> The 6502 was NOT a Motorola chip (they had the 6800). The 6502 was MOS
That's funny... did you not see what I wrote back to MRAB? Here:
The MOS 6502 is to the Motorola 6800 what the Zilog Z80 was to the Intel 8080
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 8:52:31 AM UTC+8, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/03/2014 22:19, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> > On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
>
> >> Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
>
> >>
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:40:05 PM UTC-6, MRAB wrote:
>
> The 6502 came from MOS Technology. Motorola made the 6800.
Well, not exactly. The MOS 6502 is to the Motorola 6800 what the Zilog
Z80 was to the Intel 8080.
The same engineers who designed the 6800 moved out and then designed
On 2014-03-06 01:24, Mark H. Harris wrote:
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:24:52 PM UTC-6, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
I must have had a deprived life...
The only "debug" on a home system I ever used was the one in
LS-DOS. And even then, it was only because an OS update disk
arrived with a bad secto
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:24:52 PM UTC-6, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> I must have had a deprived life...
>
> The only "debug" on a home system I ever used was the one in LS-DOS.
> And even then, it was only because an OS update disk arrived with a bad
> sector and could not be copie
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:54:59 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>> I don't think Lisp was really originally designed.
>
> The history of Lisp is described here in detail:
>
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/lisp.html
>
> Like all
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:54:59 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> I don't think Lisp was really originally designed.
The history of Lisp is described here in detail:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/lisp.html
Like all complex systems, it did not appear fully-formed in a flash of
inspi
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:47:40 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Seriously, Lisp is not only one of the oldest high-level languages
> around, being almost as old as Fortran and Cobol, but it was one of the
> biggest languages of the 1970s and even into the 80s.
Lisp was specified by Joh
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:48:40 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Ethan Furman :
>
>> Okay, that looks totally cool. Maybe I'll finally get a handle on LISP!
>> :)
>
> Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring. One day, it
> will overtake Python, I believe.
That day was 25 years ago
On 2014-03-04, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Ethan Furman :
>
>> Okay, that looks totally cool. Maybe I'll finally get a handle on
>> LISP! :)
>
> Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring. One day, it
> will overtake Python, I believe.
Seriously?
LISP had a _30_year_head_start_ yet
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Mark H. Harris wrote:
> My first IBM machine was the famous PCjr... booted directly into cartridge
> BASIC, or would optionally boot DOS 2.1 from 5" floppy, where I could
> run, you guessed it BASICA, using the cartridge rom, or I could optionally
> run DEBUG.COM a
Neil Cerutti :
> Personally, I think it hasn't taken off because special forms are
> harder to remember than syntax. And there are, like, *way* more than
> mammals needs.
It hasn't taken off yet, but even mammals can evolve.
> Well, that or lisp's designers severely underestimated how much we
>
On 2014-03-05, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:48:40 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa
> declaimed the following:
>>Ethan Furman :
>>> Okay, that looks totally cool. Maybe I'll finally get a
>>> handle on LISP! :)
>>
>> Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring.
>> One day
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:26:12 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:37:42 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> > If you had tried Python 30 years ago, you'd give it up for any serious
> > work because it would be so slow and consume so much memory.
>
> /facepalm
>
> Python i
Steven D'Aprano :
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:37:42 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> If you had tried Python 30 years ago, you'd give it up for any
>> serious work because it would be so slow and consume so much memory.
>
> /facepalm
>
> Python is only 23 years old,
Some explorers roamed in Siberia a
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:37:42 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> > If you had tried Python 30 years ago, you'd give it up for any
> > serious work because it would be so slow and consume so much memory.
>
> /facepalm
>
> Python is only 23 years old, so it would have been a
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:37:42 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> MRAB :
>
>> Into how many versions did Lisp split in its first 23 years? :-)
>
> I'm partial to Scheme, but I'll take any version.
>
> If you had tried Python 30 years ago, you'd give it up for any serious
> work because it would be so
MRAB :
> Into how many versions did Lisp split in its first 23 years? :-)
I'm partial to Scheme, but I'll take any version.
If you had tried Python 30 years ago, you'd give it up for any serious
work because it would be so slow and consume so much memory. C++ virtual
functions used to be avoided
On Tuesday 04 March 2014 23:17:40 Andrew Cooper did opine:
> On 03/03/2014 22:19, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
> >> Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
> >> Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
> >>
> >> languages with well designed
On 2014-03-05 01:57, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:48:40 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa
declaimed the following:
>Ethan Furman :
>
>> Okay, that looks totally cool. Maybe I'll finally get a handle on
>> LISP! :)
>
>Lisp is conceptually simpler than Py
In article ,
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:48:40 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa
> declaimed the following:
>
> >Ethan Furman :
> >
> >> Okay, that looks totally cool. Maybe I'll finally get a handle on
> >> LISP! :)
> >
> >Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring.
On 03/03/2014 22:19, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
>> Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
>>>
>>
>> Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
>> languages with well designed exception handling.
>
> What, and rely on someone else's low level
On 05Mar2014 09:57, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring. One day, it
> > will overtake Python, I believe.
> >
> > The final Nirvana is reached with...
>
> No no no. The final Nirvana is achi
On 04/03/2014 23:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Man, imagine what you could do with a Unicode version of Whitespace?
Yes, but how do we pursuade the Python core devs to give us a decent
implementation? Let's face it, according to our resident
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> Man, imagine what you could do with a Unicode version of Whitespace?
>>
>
> Yes, but how do we pursuade the Python core devs to give us a decent
> implementation? Let's face it, according to our resident unicode expert,
> they can't get any
On 04/03/2014 22:59, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring. One day, it
will overtake Python, I believe.
The final Nirvana is reached with...
No no no. The fin
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring. One day, it
> > will overtake Python, I believe.
> >
> > The final Nirvana is reached with...
>
> No no no. The final Nirvana is achieved
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring. One day, it
> will overtake Python, I believe.
>
> The final Nirvana is reached with...
No no no. The final Nirvana is achieved when you no longer write text
at all, but simply edi
Ethan Furman :
> Okay, that looks totally cool. Maybe I'll finally get a handle on
> LISP! :)
Lisp is conceptually simpler than Python, but awe-inspiring. One day, it
will overtake Python, I believe.
Once you have Lisp down pat, you'll be able to appreciate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinato
On 03/04/2014 12:47 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 3/4/14 12:16 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I don't have time to watch an hour-long video... what'd he do,
exactly that?
If you fast forward to 16:14, his talk is about five minutes long. He
wr
On 3/4/14 12:16 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I don't have time to watch an hour-long video... what'd he do, exactly that?
If you fast forward to 16:14, his talk is about five minutes long. He
wrote a Lisp compiler whose backend is Python.
S
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I don't have time to watch an hour-long video... what'd he do, exactly that?
If you fast forward to 16:14, his talk is about five minutes long. He
wrote a Lisp compiler whose backend is Python.
Skip
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/list
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:41 AM, wrote:
> On Monday, 3 March 2014 22:55:32 UTC, Chris Kaynor wrote:
>> You can go much simpler than that. Merely port Python to LISP, then write a
>> LISP interpreter in Python. Done.
>
> http://blog.pault.ag/post/46982895940/heres-my-talk-from-pycon-2013-i-tried-
On Monday, 3 March 2014 22:55:32 UTC, Chris Kaynor wrote:
> You can go much simpler than that. Merely port Python to LISP, then write a
> LISP interpreter in Python. Done.
http://blog.pault.ag/post/46982895940/heres-my-talk-from-pycon-2013-i-tried-to-queue
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
>> On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
>> > Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
>> > >
>> >
>> > Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
>> > languages with well designed excep
In article ,
Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
> > Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
> > >
> >
> > Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
> > languages with well designed exception handling.
>
> What, and rely on someone else's low lev
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Chris Kaynor wrote:
> You can go much simpler than that. Merely port Python to LISP, then write a
> LISP interpreter in Python. Done.
Actually, here's an easier way. Just write an 80x86 assembly language
interpreter in Python, then port CPython to Python.
ChrisA
-
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
> >> Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
> >> languages with
On 03/03/2014 22:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
languages with well designed exception handling.
On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
> Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
> >
>
> Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
> languages with well designed exception handling.
What, and rely on someone else's low level C?
--
Cameron Simpson
Hag:Two
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 03Mar2014 09:17, Neal Becker wrote:
>> Charles R Harris Wrote in message:
>> >
>>
>> Imo the lesson here is never write in low level c. Use modern
>> languages with well designed exception handling.
>
> What, and rely on someone else'
43 matches
Mail list logo
