libera/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
6:33:01
pjb
moon-child: not really. run-time antiviruses just look at the accesses (they trap some syscall, etc). They don't care how the program does it, just what it does. static antiviruses would have it just as easy analysing the source than the binary. The only thing is that perhaps they don't bother analysing the sources, notably of "scripting" languages that need to be executed to determine 100% of the semantic.
13:34:38
nirnam
I had sbclrc load quicklisp in there, it worked fine wtih --load, but no --script complain about there's no ql package
13:37:06
poldy
According to http://www.sbcl.org/manual/index.html#Toplevel-Options , "--script" implies "--no-userinit --no-sysinit", so it isn't loaded.
13:38:29
nirnam
I see, that part about --no-userinit isn't in man page tho, just --disable-ldb --lose-on-corruption --end-runtime-options
13:41:00
poldy
It's confusing to me too, but "--script" is documented in two places, once under "Runtime Options" and once under "Toplevel Options". Different implied options are listed in both places, I presume what is really used is the union of the two sets.
13:42:44
nirnam
ah you're right, I didn't even see the other part, I never read document where a flags behavior is descript in two seperate section before
13:51:31
nij-
In this essay, PG ranted much about CL, and kept saying that the "older lisps" are better. I'm too a noob to understand. But as a CL lover, I'd really like to know its limit. So if someone can tell me something more, I'd be glad. Thank you =) http://paulgraham.com/popular.html
13:58:08
dash[m]
I doubt there's much more to it than 1) common lisp was a committee effort and 2) didn't have the same kind of community behind it as its predecessors
14:00:45
wasamasa
because everyone and their dog just check in every single package they've installed