Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #11387
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: forth vs common lisp |
| References | <96e0a52b-0997-43f8-b6a0-dda000b133ab@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <9553250e-bb76-4b25-b42f-48b6041a5c05@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <slrnjou5rb.2pu.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| Date | 2012-04-18 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xy5ps47xf.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> (permalink) |
| Organization | Nightsong/Fort GNOX |
Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> writes: > set b [doIt3 $a1 $b1 $c1] > set c [doIt4 $x1 $y1 $z1] ... > Using Lisp it can be even worse, it seems. If you want to use temporaries in Lisp, it's perfectly fine to do so. > Lisp seems to me (well, I may be wrong) a language for people more > "purely theoretically" - and less technically - oriented. If you're talking about CL, it's not like that at all, it was written by hackers and has a lot of creature comforts. It's sort of like Perl or C++ in that regard. It looks disorganized from the outside, but like a workbench whose contents have evolved over time, whenever you reach for a tool, it tends to be just where you put your hand. Scheme and Haskell are both much more theoretically oriented than CL. CL lends itself to a kitchen-sink approach to programming, as opposed to Forth's minimalistic and highly focused approach. CL's runtime error checking (aka dynamic typing), garbage collection, and convenient syntax for nested structures make it (IMO) much easier to use for complicated programs. The cost of this is much higher resource consumption and some unpredictability of performance (such as GC pauses) that limit its suitability for small computers and for realtime applications.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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: FreeDOS CL quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 16:01 -0700
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 quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-03 15:09 -0700
Re: forth vs common lisp Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-03 18:21 -0700
Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-03 18:58 -0700
Re: forth vs common lisp and the abstraction claims of haskell and lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 16:01 -0700
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 quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-05-22 02:34 -0700
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
Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-05-22 02:31 -0700
Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-05-22 12:55 +0300
Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-05-28 15:19 -0700
csiph-web