Re: forth vs common lisp

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: forth vs common lisp
References	(6 earlier) <slrnjp0p2v.37k.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> <dbbd5dbd-89b7-4307-858a-5bbfc1c3853e@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <slrnjp0vvk.4qf.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> <de1981f9-19a3-4e76-97bb-c91ad4698b79@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <slrnjp1d7v.7qn.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org>
Date	2012-04-19 18:49 -0700
Message-ID	<7xpqb3xjcv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> (permalink)
Organization	Nightsong/Fort GNOX

Show all headers | View raw

Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> writes:
> Took a glance at several short Lisp listings - and it seems to me, that it's
> designed for mathematicians. Actually, just before posting this, found at
> wikipedia: "Lisp was originally created as a practical mathematical notation
> for computer programs, influenced by the notation of Alonzo Church's lambda
> calculus."

That was in the 1950's.  CL is from the 1980's, the result of decades of
evolution and hacking, mostly on large (for the respective era)
computers.  That means while Forth tries to be minimalistic for the sake
of small-machine resources and implementation simplicity, CL
implementations tend to have fancy development tools and powerful
compilers, and the language itself has lots of features and libraries
(again by the standards of the era).

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on Chuck's problem with the
parentheses, given that the alternative he presents is for programmers
to juggle a stack around in their heads.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 17:05 -0700
  Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-14 17:10 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 08:49 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 10:02 -0700
  Re: forth vs common lisp Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 17:47 +0200
    Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 11:20 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-15 22:22 +0200
        Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 13:29 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 09:33 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-15 23:44 +0000
  Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 17:41 -0700
  Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-18 09:49 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-18 19:34 +0100
      Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-18 18:50 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-19 04:08 +0200
          Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 06:25 +0300
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 19:55 +0100
              Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 21:39 +0300
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 20:47 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 22:37 +0300
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:59 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2012-04-19 09:28 +0200
          Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-19 01:03 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp kodifik <kodifik@eurogaran.com> - 2012-04-19 02:05 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-19 04:29 -0500
            Re: forth vs common lisp Tamas Papp <tkpapp@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 10:15 +0000
              Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 08:45 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-19 14:15 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 16:06 -0700
              Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-20 05:24 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 04:17 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> - 2012-04-20 08:34 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 16:54 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-20 17:03 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> - 2012-04-20 16:57 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 13:06 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 13:20 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-20 23:14 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 11:04 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 22:12 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 15:19 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-22 01:01 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 18:35 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-22 03:13 +0100
                Re: FreeDOS CL "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-22 10:58 +0200
                Re: FreeDOS CL "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-22 11:01 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 06:18 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-22 03:43 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 13:02 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-21 16:29 +0000
              Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-21 14:38 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 11:17 +0100
        Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:39 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-18 22:17 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 10:11 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 01:28 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 10:37 +0100
              Re: forth vs common lisp Ecki <ecki@intershop.de> - 2012-04-19 12:12 +0200
              Re: forth vs common lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-19 09:35 -1000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:56 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-19 11:25 -1000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 00:00 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 09:49 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 19:15 +0100
              Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 12:01 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:12 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:25 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 00:59 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 18:49 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 07:14 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 20:57 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 21:21 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 12:21 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 12:27 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 14:59 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 15:25 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 15:38 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 06:23 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-21 13:30 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-21 18:12 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-20 11:55 +0200
        Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 12:14 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-20 16:56 +0200
            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 19:52 +0100
    Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:10 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 09:58 -0700

csiph-web