An hour and a half ago, Eugene Toder wrote:
> > (That's something to know to do the code splitting that Matthias
> > is talking about.)
> Going back to this, I often find that I want to use laziness as an
> interface. That is, I build a system as a collection of components,
> written in a strict la
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 09:19:32PM +0200, Jukka Tuominen wrote:
>
> The functions that refer to ROM primitives continue to work as normal, but
> if you have chosen instead to use these new functions, they would
> dynamically use the RAM versions.
That reminds me of the Microsoft Basic that was pu
> So you shouldn't use it at all.
I wouldn't if I saw any hints :)
> The way the lazy language works, any function that is defined outside
> of the lazy world (and is not a struct constructor) is considered
> eager, so arguments that are sent to it are forced
Yes, that's pretty clear.
> (That's
But in both of them the semantic attempts failed completely, and
progress all due to people dumping it and just go with statistic
approaches.
7 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> Interesting that we seem to have made progress on the first two
> bullets of 'people lie'.
>
> Robby
>
> On Sat, Mar
5 hours ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I am interested in the following question: does it make sense to
> write parts of a systems in Lazy (so that you have lists=streams and
> you naturally stay in this world) and yet by linking to the strict
> world, you still get the best of both.
Four hou
Mark,
I'm getting a similar impression. The only problem with this is that
racket/stream is available in racket by default and nothing in
documentation hints at experimental status. This confuses people who
use racket to learn scheme by working through SICP book.
Eugene
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:
You should use SRFI-41, as SRFI-40 is deprecated.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> I've had some email discussions about this with the Racket team in the
> past, so here's a quick unofficial summary of what I've learned, while
> you're waiting for a more official response:
On Mar 5, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> One of the difficult aspect of life-long data accumulation is dealing
> with data alrady accumulated before the new system came into existence.
Starting about 10 years ago, I started formulating potential dissertation
topics like this:
here
I've had some email discussions about this with the Racket team in the
past, so here's a quick unofficial summary of what I've learned, while
you're waiting for a more official response:
racket/stream is not really a "stream library" by the typical Scheme
definition of stream. It's really a libra
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:11:59PM +0200, Jukka Tuominen wrote:
>
> Even with these challenges solved, you would still need to dig deeper in the
> overall architecture to solve issues that Liitin tries to address. In the
> overall concept; accumulate life-long personal data and methods and intera
I see how this can make sense, however I'm not sure how to make it
work. For example:
> (define (foo) (display "called\n") empty-stream)
> (cons 1 (foo))
'(1 . #)
> (stream-cons 1 (foo))
called
#
So stream-cons is strict even in lazy racket, perhaps because
stream-cons is defined in strict racket
On Mar 5, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Eugene Toder wrote:
> I though that the whole point of streams was to provide lazy lists in
> a strict language.
I understand.
I am interested in the following question: does it make sense to
write parts of a systems in Lazy (so that you have lists=streams
and you
Matthias,
Is there a reason to use streams in lazy racket? Won't lists give me
the same behaviour?
> (define (foo) (display "called\n") '())
> (cons 1 (foo))
'(1 . #)
I though that the whole point of streams was to provide lazy lists in
a strict language.
Eugene
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM,
Consider using Lazy Racket. -- Matthias
On Mar 5, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Eugene Toder wrote:
> Hello,
>
> stream-cons from racket's standard racket/stream.rkt is implemented as
> a macro -stream-cons wrapped into a case-lambda.
> This wrapping makes it strict in both arguments, contrary to the
> t
+1,
this behaviour of stream-cons of racket/stream definitely is wrong.
Jos
> -Original Message-
> From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org
> [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Toder
> Sent: 05 March 2011 21:37
> To: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: [racket] stream-cons
There a a couple of noteworthy points to metadata approach in Liitin.
1) Existing data in any format with or without metadata is better than
non-existing or one changed to something unusable. Even if different institutes
and individuals use different format, there are means automate conversions
Hello,
stream-cons from racket's standard racket/stream.rkt is implemented as
a macro -stream-cons wrapped into a case-lambda.
This wrapping makes it strict in both arguments, contrary to the
traditional behaviour from SICP, srfi-40, srfi-41 etc.
For example:
> (define (foo) (display "called\n")
>
> I'll tell more about Liitin history in a while...
>
It started about ten years ago (still just a kid compared to Xanadu). The
problem with computers/computing was/is that the interfaces are so clumsy
that even at best it feels like you are interacting with them with your
elbows (both HW and SW
Interesting that we seem to have made progress on the first two
bullets of 'people lie'.
Robby
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>> Also, in addition to the ambiguous "people lie," I'd add
>> "ontological/knowledge engineering is hard." I think that malice and
>> inco
> > 2. Have you developed portions of Liitin in Liitin? I assume you have
> > read the 1999 paper on 'revenge of the son of the Lisp machine'. Perhaps
> > you could just start with a 'demo' on how to develop something
> like it in
> > Liitin.
> >
> > In a way one should re-do the entire code base
> Also, in addition to the ambiguous "people lie," I'd add
> "ontological/knowledge engineering is hard." I think that malice and
> incompetence should be considered two separate problems that don't
> necessarily have exactly the same solution.
The "and" was meant as a separator.
http://www.well
Hi,
I've been using the racket webserver to build websites and found this minor
bug ( omission) in response/xexpr file where it's contract does not take the
#:cookie parameter when it should. Here's the link to the documentation
page.
http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server/http.html?q=response/xe
Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote at 03/05/2011 01:35 PM:
Best summary of the problem with the Semantic Web: "People are lazy and they
lie". (I heard that from Peter Norvig, who was Baraphrasing Cory Doctorow.)
My original thesis topic (circa '98) intended to address these
problems. I don't re
And even worse, it is extremely difficult to write code that will tell
you that! :)
--hsm
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> Best summary of the problem with the Semantic Web: "People are lazy
> and they lie". (I heard that from Peter Norvig, who was Baraphrasing
>
Best summary of the problem with the Semantic Web: "People are lazy
and they lie". (I heard that from Peter Norvig, who was Baraphrasing
Cory Doctorow.)
Shriram
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
The flaw then and the flaw now in the 'Semantic' web is that without
natural language capability, the necessary tagging for the web to work
its magic is not usable. Given that (a task I urge apon others as I am
immersed in it myself :) ) then this as an addition to both your
offering and virtually
Eventhough I've presented the Liitin concept as the replacer of everything
we know today, I do my best to be realistic at the same time. It is still
difficult to see how far Liitin concept could be stretched and which part
would actually prove useful.
I hope that atleast some would survive. I add
Since our experties is in industrial design and user interface design, we
never dreamed of creating a new operating system or a computer language from
scratch. Scheme seemed like a much better approach. Especially the
simplicity and dynamic evaluation were important.
If you know Scheme, then the
This is also very interesting and it seems that this is propably gaining
more populaity as the technology improves. For example photos save both date
and global positition nowadays.
I would say that the relation with Liitin is that Liitin could provide the
means to save reliably life-long data AN
Excellent story! I definitely need more pockets and gadgets :)
br, jukka
> -Original Message-
> From: David Herman [mailto:dher...@ccs.neu.edu]
> Sent: 05 March 2011 15:01
> To: Jukka Tuominen
> Cc: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] Liitin screencast tutorial
>
>
> > I kno
On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Jukka Tuominen wrote:
> Those examples that you mentioned... they ended well, didn't they? :)
Yes. One way to survive (perhaps) is to learn from the mistake of others :-)
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
ht
My first thought was that it was a bit like MUMPS with its global variables
(where global means global among processes and users, not just global in
scope). It seems to me that persistence is the right way to do that. The
versioning reminds me a bit of WebDAV, or even VMS.
Sent from my iPad
O
Nice work -- good luck keeping it going!
Gerernter's system, which Matthias referred to, is called
"Lifestreams". It's a very inspiring vision.
But Dave's pointer is also apropos. Xanadu was perhaps guilty of
architecture astronautry, but the claims behind such systems may well
require that.
S
> I know there are many (near) dead-ends to be expected, but it still feels
> naiively interesting to find out what't at the end of the road. Those
> examples that you mentioned... they ended well, didn't they? :)
Speaking of ending well, the idea of perma-programs also brings to mind Ted
Nelson'
34 matches
Mail list logo
