Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Pascal J. Bourguignon" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth,comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: forth vs common lisp Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:24:44 +0200 Organization: Informatimago Lines: 62 Message-ID: <87r4vjhypv.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> References: <96e0a52b-0997-43f8-b6a0-dda000b133ab@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <9553250e-bb76-4b25-b42f-48b6041a5c05@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <83a21f38-9018-48e1-af67-1bddecc26deb@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <76bd17f8-fa38-4f61-95c7-0a950928dcc6@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: individual.net Uea8yqlPDP9U3sSWQsd6BgpBpAZqMr9N315P3LgXCiMhkZNoTY Cancel-Lock: sha1:MWU0YWZlN2RmOWJhNWM3MjljMzU0YzRkZGZjYTQ1ZTFkNjc1NDMzYg== sha1:SvQ8UfQTOLNMgO6ud8bphM46ld0= Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAQMAAABtzGvEAAAABlBMVEUAAAD///+l2Z/dAAAA oElEQVR4nK3OsRHCMAwF0O8YQufUNIQRGIAja9CxSA55AxZgFO4coMgYrEDDQZWPIlNAjwq9 033pbOBPtbXuB6PKNBn5gZkhGa86Z4x2wE67O+06WxGD/HCOGR0deY3f9Ijwwt7rNGNf6Oac l/GuZTF1wFGKiYYHKSFAkjIo1b6sCYS1sVmFhhhahKQssRjRT90ITWUk6vvK3RsPGs+M1RuR mV+hO/VvFAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Accept-Language: fr, es, en User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:11456 comp.lang.lisp:9646 Rugxulo writes: > Can't hurt, in theory (though I don't grok it), but everything relies > upon what standard, version, implementation, OS, tutorial, etc. that > you use. I honestly don't think Lisp is as universal and easy and > powerful and unified as you imply. There's only one standard: American National Standard ANSI INCITS 226-1994 (R2004). All conforming implementations conform to that standard, therefore all your conforming program will run equally on all the conforming implementations. (Most CL implementations are conforming, modulo bugs). The big number of libraries and applications written in Common Lisp that runs on half a dozen or more different CL implementations is proof that Common Lisp is as universal, easy, powerful and unified as implied. > Even MIT/GNU Scheme only supports R5RS (1998), and even I know that > R6RS (2007) has some critics. Though I wouldn't dare to say any of it > is deprecated based upon age alone. But you know GNU overall is > fairly big on standard support, so if even they can't agree .... Well, even if you consider older lisps, you can run their programs on Common Lisp (that was the design purpose of Common Lisp): http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/small-cl-pgms/wang.html And even if you consider older lisps as different from CL than Scheme, you still have a sizeable intersection: http://paste.lisp.org/display/122296 >> I don't have very much interest in desktop-computer programming, so my >> effort at learning dynamic OOP and all of that related stuff is going >> pretty slowly. If I thought that there was a chance at getting a job >> at any of this, I would be a lot more enthusiastic. The whole world is >> going to Java, which I find absolutely horrible --- but if I really >> was serious about getting a job I would bite the bullet and learn >> Java, just like everybody else. > > There are various other languages using the Java VM as well as its JIT > (I suppose). So you aren't stuck to Java (language), specifically. Indeed. For example we have two Common Lisp implementations targetting the JVM: ABCL and CLforJava. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.