Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.lisp > #9646

Re: forth vs common lisp

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> 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 {}.

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

Thread

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 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 namekuseijin <namekuseijin@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 12:10 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-20 08:53 -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 Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 04:34 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp namekuseijin <namekuseijin@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 11:53 -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 lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 17:56 +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 Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 21:12 +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 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

csiph-web