freenode/lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
15:29:49
phoe
I once came into #lisp and saw Chrome, being the new IE6, apparently translating WASM to JS
15:30:50
decs
Thanks for your advice earlier guys, I've spruced up my little hobby framework in accordance with your comments. I kept the closures for the moment though as I'd like to experiment with some of the material in Let Over Lambda. Pastebin https://pastebin.com/ZCjSjA37 if you feel like having a squiz
15:56:17
aeth
phoe: the context (with a bunch of offtopic thrown in, yes) being why we still don't have Lisp in the browser.
15:56:40
flip214
does someone know of a REPL over HTTP, ie. with a HTML <textarea> and a history and syntax highlighting and <tab>completion (via JS) and any other features?
15:57:36
thmprover
OK, I am about to start a toy AI project, and I'm deliberating between using Common Lisp vs Scheme...
15:58:46
aeth
You're probably best just asking in #lisp for CL and #scheme for Scheme and getting the strongest argument for each, though. ##lisp (for Lisps in general) is kind of inactive
15:59:32
thmprover
OK, well, what is the strongest arguments in favor of CL? (I don't know CL, I work with Clojure daily though)
16:00:03
phoe
multiparadigm, it doesn't really enforce any paradigm od programming style on you and adapts to new ways of programming
16:00:42
flip214
thmprover: thanks! but feels very slow, I'd have hoped for something very interactive
16:01:13
phoe
flip214: this likely executes a new CLISP process for each hit of the button, hence slowness
16:02:12
thmprover
I have read a good chunk of "Let over Lambda", so I appreciate the strength of CL's macro system, and realize Scheme lacks this power
16:04:31
beach
thmprover: As far as I know, Scheme doesn't have anything like CLOS yet. And that is one of the absolute strongest point in favor of Common Lisp.
16:05:37
aeth
beach: That's not quite true. Plenty of Schemes have CLOS-like systems, although portable Scheme does not and probably cannot
16:06:00
thmprover
So I'm going to be doing some symbolic mathematics, and I'd like arithmetic operators to extend to new types (e.g., quaternions should have addition). Can CL handle this?
16:06:33
beach
aeth: "Schemes" in plural form, and -like at the end. Very likely mutually incompatible.
16:07:08
beach
aeth: Of course portable Scheme could have it. It is just a matter of including it in the next version of the standard.
16:07:57
aeth
beach: It would probably have the same issue as R6RS's condition system, in that it would define a hierarchy that might conflict with an implementation, thus meaning that otherwise-conformant implementations might ignore that part of the standard.
16:08:08
aeth
It's kind of too late to do that sort of thing with Scheme, at least portably and standardized.
16:08:22
beach
p_l: I seriously doubt that something like CLOS for Scheme could be in a library. My experience with CLOS is that it permeates every aspect of the base system as well.
16:08:55
p_l
beach: at the same time, CLOS' major claim to fame is that it could be introduced through library
16:09:00
aeth
beach: It can, it just has to be a built-in library rather than one that can be added as a portability library.
16:10:26
flip214
hmmm, I'm testing cl-jupyter but I always get fatal error encountered in SBCL pid 273284(tid 0x7f0c8f9fb2c0):
16:10:59
p_l
beach: I hope I don't come through as argumentative on this - I just find Lisp implementations to be so malleable :)
16:29:47
aeth
On the one hand, CLOS is literally going to be in "a library" in Airship Scheme, but on the other hand, of course that's just exposing the underlying CLOS functionality from the base CL implementation it's running on...
16:51:32
Cuccslayer
i have a problem with the libffi dlls, i have put them on PATH and even pushed the directory in which they are to cffi:*foreign-library-directories*
2:03:13
kinope
I stopped by yesterday under the name Decs. I program just as a hobby. I hope it's cool if I can pop by in the future if I have questions, not sure if I personally have much to offer others just yet in that capacity though.
2:17:37
kinope
I do have a question about closures. I'm working on a project where I made my object classes from closures (experimenting with material from Let Over Lambda). I was informed that it's unusual to do that, and to use the standard class facilities presest in Common Lisp. Is this a matter of aesthetics or is it rooted in practicality or performance considerations. I'm genuinelly curious as I don't understand the parts at play
2:50:51
beach
kinope: The language has no particular tools for inspecting closures, whereas there is a rich set of tools for standard objects. Dispatch is slow/sequential with closures, and you have to do it manually. with generic functions, dispatch is fast and built in. With a closure, all "method" must appear in the same source code, whereas with standard classes, they can be spread out. Generic functions have features such as auxiliary
3:19:32
kinope
beach: Thanks for that information, it's very helpful. Now I'm interested to see if the runtime overhead of my project can be reduced by making the switch.