Re: forth vs common lisp

From	lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.lisp
Subject	Re: forth vs common lisp
Date	2012-04-20 17:56 +0000
Organization	PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID	<jms7vm$im4$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <87r4vjhypv.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <jmqo03$tb$1@reader1.panix.com> <87lilqe7su.fsf@mail.geddis.org> <jms4bq$qct$1@reader1.panix.com> <20120420095157.3@kylheku.com>

Show all headers | View raw

In <20120420095157.3@kylheku.com> Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes:

>On 2012-04-20, lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> wrote:
>> modification.  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.  Again, this is hardly
>> peculiar to CL.  Nor do I think it's necessarily a bad thing.

>If you were to put some concrete numbers on quantifiers like "any size" 
>and "rare", what would they be?

I'm not sure hard numbers are appropriate here, although you are
probably correct in nitpicking my nitpicking.  It is true that vague
quantifiers are generally not helpful.

As for "rare," it's just my general impression.  Certainly someone who
delves into a different application domain could come away with a
different impression: all or most of the code they want or have ever
been interested in Just Works without needing special conditionals (or
at least some quick source tweaks) for different implementions.  By any
chance, has this been your experience?  It was not mine.  Nor was it the
experience of anyone I used to know who used the language.

As for size, I was deliberate in avoiding a number on this one.  I think
a project that takes more than a weekend to hack out the skeleton for is
generally a project of some substance.  Hypothetically, a project of
150k lines of code assembled by a small team could probably be
generically written to avoid flagging most implementations, whereas a
much smaller project of only 10k lines written by a single programmer
might be nearly impossible to do this with.  What is being built has a
lot to do with it, of course.  Others will have very different notions
of size than I do, of course, which I assume is why you asked.

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