There is a lot of good information here.
Thank you all who contributed.
Mathew Kurian
--
Mathew Kurian
Seven Lakes High School
Cell: 8324932862 | Home: 2814929526
Do all the good you can, by all the means you can,
In all the ways you can, in all the places you can,
At all the times you can, to a
I like these arguments, but those who ask the unanswerable questions about
compiling, interpreting, and scripting wouldn't get the details. From your
answer and JRMs, I might try to stick to: "Racket is JIT-compiled too", and it
even runs lightweight languages like R5RS Scheme. The point is to
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Richard Cleis wrote:
> Can you explain 'script' ?
Nope.
But a couple of years back we were debating the definition of a
`light-weight language'.
I think the best answer to that was ``any language where you don't need
a Makefile'' (or `Ant', or an IDE, etc.)
--
the ultimate answer is 42. Now you just need the proper question...
here's another take: java is JIT-compiled too. It powers a very
large industry. The difference to Racket is just a few million
dollars worth of hype, man-power and a (largely) static verbose
type-system: this provides a tad b
I can picture John Cleese, wearing a legal wig, delivering your advise
in episode n.
RAC
On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
Ah. Then the answers are "scripting" and "compiled". Unless they want
to hear "programming" and "compiled". Basically any of the four
possible answer
Ah. Then the answers are "scripting" and "compiled". Unless they want
to hear "programming" and "compiled". Basically any of the four
possible answers are all correct (insomuch as the questions actually
make sense).
Robby
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Richard Cleis wrote:
> Ok. But... Carrio
Ok. But... Carrions de Dwimmerlaik provide funding; they want answers
to these questions.
RAC
On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
'Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM, namekuseijin
wrote:
he would probabl
'Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM, namekuseijin wrote:
> he would probably look at you funny and point you to Amazon.com and
> some deep obscure Lord of the Rings passage.
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Richard Cleis wrote:
he would probably look at you funny and point you to Amazon.com and
some deep obscure Lord of the Rings passage.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Richard Cleis wrote:
> How would he respond to questions that I must answer: "You use Racket? For
> scripting or for programming? Is Racket interprete
How would he respond to questions that I must answer: "You use Racket? For
scripting or for programming? Is Racket interpreted or compiled?"
rac
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:51 PM, namekuseijin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Richard Cleis wrote:
>> As someone who doesn't know better, I li
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Richard Cleis wrote:
> As someone who doesn't know better, I like your post. Can you explain
> 'script' ?
as Larry Wall put it:
"Suppose you went back to Ada Lovelace and asked her the difference
between a script and a program. She'd probably look at you funny,
As someone who doesn't know better, I like your post. Can you explain 'script'
?
rac
> The definitions are clear and have not changed. If you have a machine
> that runs programs written in language M, but you have a program
> written in language L, you can proceed in one of two ways:
>
> 1)
Wow! There is a lot of confusion on this list by people who know better.
Mathew Kurian
As long as the processor can only read only numbers (binary), Racket
cannot be interpreted by the machine before being translated into
another language such as Assembly.
John Clements
There is a histo
"I am a random number checker. Here, give me a number and I'll tell
you whether it's random."
--John Clements
(who else could it be?)
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Wow, 1 is the first random digit! Cool.
>
> Robby
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard
Wow, 1 is the first random digit! Cool.
Robby
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard
wrote:
> 2010/10/14 Hendrik Boom :
>
>> There was actually a book published in the 50's or 60's with a million
>> random digits that were generated in this fashion.
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://books.g
Robby Findler wrote at 10/14/2010 09:46 AM:
Or, if you aren't worried about speed, you can script this website:
http://www.random.org/
:) And if you *are* concerned about speed and pretty good entropy, on
Linux with normal PC hardware, you can use the "/dev/random" device.
I actually u
2010/10/14 Hendrik Boom :
> There was actually a book published in the 50's or 60's with a million
> random digits that were generated in this fashion.
Here it is:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XvwX1fxryIgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=random+numbers+million&hl=en&ei=pAu3TIqkL8mZOoOUuaIJ&sa=X&oi=bo
Or, if you aren't worried about speed, you can script this website:
http://www.random.org/
Robby
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:06:50PM -0400, Stephen Bloch wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
>
>> -- Is Racket an interpreted language? If not, how does it convert to
>> machine/binary code?
>>
> As you know, Racket evolved from Scheme, which evolved from Lisp, which
> in
On Oct 13, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
-- Is Racket an interpreted language? If not, how does it convert
to machine/binary code?
As you know, Racket evolved from Scheme, which evolved from Lisp,
which in its earliest implementations (fifty years ago) was
interpreted rather tha
20 matches
Mail list logo
