I'm writing a DSL for CAM --- (computer-aided-manufacturing), which primarily
involves generating gcode for CNC machines (lathes, milling machines, 5-axis
laser cutters, etc.). Do you guys know if anybody has done any CAM work in
Racket, Scheme, Lisp, etc.? Perhaps one of these 30-day wonders fr
What would a Racket OS on an FPGA be used for???
I wrote the assembler/compiler/simulator development package MFX for the
MiniForth processor, which ran Forth as its native language. That thing had a
specific use --- it was for a motion-control board, primarily used in a laser
etcher. The MiniF
On 2012 Nov 20, at 13:56, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:02:06AM +, Norman Gray wrote:
>>
>> I think list members might experience a certain amount of surprise at your
>> conclusions...
>>
>> On 2012 Nov 20, at 02:34, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
&g
just putting a syntax-layer on
top of an existing Scheme system.
____
From: Jay McCarthy
To: Grant Rettke
Cc: Hugh Aguilar ; "users@racket-lang.org"
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [racket] Scheme's place in the world
You should look at Staapl:
ngs.
>
> I think list members might experience a certain amount of surprise at your
> conclusions...
>
> On 2012 Nov 20, at 02:34, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>
> > For a numerical program it is necessary to have mixed-precision arithmetic.
> > [...] Scheme, Python, Ruby, C/C++,
regards --- Hugh
________
From: Jens Axel Søgaard
To: Hugh Aguilar
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: [racket] LC53
2012/11/17 Hugh Aguilar :
> Note that when I invented LC53, the 32-bit x86 was still prevalent and I was
> assuming that the sys
Well, if by "examples" you mean valid values for X, any 32-bit number other
than 0 will work.
From: Richard Cleis
To: Hugh Aguilar
Cc: "users@racket-lang.org"
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [racket] LC53
On
All of this talk about using Racket for numerical work reminds me of a simple
function that I included in my novice package:
http://www.forth.org/novice.html
This is the LC53 linear-congruential prng (pseudo-random number generator) that
I invented. Here it is using infix pseudo-code:
m = 2^32 -
ched to Scheme which has more
educational documentation available (such as SICP).
regards --- Hugh
From: Joe Marshall
To: Hugh Aguilar
Cc: "users@racket-lang.org"
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Rac
ich is in England.
best regards --- Hugh
From: Dmitry Pavlov
To: Erich Rast ; Hugh Aguilar
Cc: users@racket-lang.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket
Eric, Hugh,
OOP surely is not what we chose
> We are doing numerical integration of celestial bodies over large periods of
>time (100 years is a norm).
I'm new to Scheme, so I may be totally wrong about this --- but, isn't a
numerical program like this exactly what Scheme is *not* designed for? Isn't
Scheme primarily for dynamic-OOP prog
I am very impressed that Racket is as fast as it is. I had expected the
compilers such as Gambit to be much faster than the VM-JIT system. If Racket
had a 64-bit x86 assembler available, I might even consider using it instead of
Gambit.
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:09:19 -0500
From: Sa
Has anybody done any benchmarks comparing Racket, Gambit, Chicken, or any other
Scheme, for speed?
It seems easier to go from Racket to Gambit or Chicken than from Racket to CL
--- pretty much just a matter of using different libraries. It may even be
possible to have code that compiles under d
ters have. Within this context, moving programs
sans source-code between platforms is not an issue. :-)
I don't think that JIT is anything I'd want for my Forth. Thanks for explaining
it though --- I'm always interested in learning about what is going on in the
real world.
- Forwarded Message -
From: Hugh Aguilar
To: Stephen Bloch
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [racket] assembly language
You are right that a threaded Forth doesn't need to do any assembly --- it just
"compiles" pointers to functions (code fiel
-bit though. My understanding is that there are CL assemblers
available that provide 64-bit, and there is Gambit Scheme's assembler that also
provides 64-bit. I think Racket may get voted off the island. I'm still
interested in Racket for other things though.
From: Tony Garnock-Jones
To:
Hello. I'm new to Racket. I tried learning Factor previously but had difficulty
understanding the concepts and the terminology, so I decided to try Racket
instead --- Racket has a lot of novice-oriented documentation available, plus
Scheme has books available also. I may learn Common Lisp simult
17 matches
Mail list logo
