Re: forth vs common lisp

From	Don Geddis <don@geddis.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth, comp.lang.lisp
Subject	Re: forth vs common lisp
Date	2012-04-20 16:57 -0700
Organization	http://don.geddis.org/
Message-ID	<87hawevtw7.fsf@mail.geddis.org> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <76bd17f8-fa38-4f61-95c7-0a950928dcc6@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <87r4vjhypv.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <jmqo03$tb$1@reader1.panix.com> <87lilqe7su.fsf@mail.geddis.org> <jms4bq$qct$1@reader1.panix.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2012:
> It was only meant to clarify the statement I was responding to, which
> seemed to suggest that the playing field was uniform and that all
> "conforming" programs would run without any modification.

I still believe that.  Without looking at the errata lists ahead of
time, I bet you'd be pretty hard pressed to write a conforming CL
program that fails to execute properly on an implementation that
purports to conform.

> It seems rare for a CL program of any size to not need at least a few
> bits of conditional compilation to satisfy idiosyncrasies with the
> different "standard" implementations.

Well, now, that's a completely independent claim.

Interesting CL programs "of size" tend to use implementation-specific
features which are beyond the ANSI standard (such as multiprocessing or
network sockets).  Implementation-specific extensions, quite naturally,
do indeed vary by implementation.

A second source of these kinds of changes, is that in some places the
ANSI standard is somewhat liberal (e.g. how logical pathnames map to
particular real-world OS filesystems), and implementations are free to
make different choices while still remaining conforming.  A real, large,
CL program presumably needs to get something specific done, and it may
matter just exactly which valid choice the particular implementation
happened to choose.  (To put it another way: programmers often just test
their code on their home implementation, and if it "works", they may not
realize that they've relied on assumptions which are not guaranteed by
the ANSI standard, but which instead just happen to be true in that one
implementation.)

So, I don't disagree that minor code tweaking is often required in
porting large CL programs between different CL implementations.

But I completely reject your claim that the cause is that the
implementations are actually violating the ANSI standard.  The typical
minor exceptions to conforming are too obscure to matter to hardly any
program, even a large, significant one.

You've basically confused "conforming program" with "typical large
Common Lisp program (including extensions)".  These aren't even close to
being the same thing.

        -- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis                  http://don.geddis.org/               don@geddis.org
Artificial Intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the
ones in movies.

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