because people who rewrite in rust are either learning rust and need something to practice or try to make a program more strict and memory safe.
Lisp is the opposite of the latter.
idk man in the past month ive seen a regex compiler outperforming rust's regex compiler, constant work on a midi player, an entire web framework, and some guy maintaining an entire audio synthesizer, all projects from separate people
Show me that place where lisp is strict?
Easy; bounds checking isnt a feature that gets silently disabled (unlike rust).
2 years ago
Anonymous
do you not know what a list is or is it that you dont know what an array is
2 years ago
Anonymous
>ive seen a regex compiler outperforming rust's regex compiler
Where ? I want to see this
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is it this ?
https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare
Common Lisp is memory safe through slow ass garbage collection. Rust is zero overhead safety. There is inherent benefit to rust for memory safety.
Also lisp is the opposite of strict, lisp literally has no formal type system. Rust requires four lines of code to convert a string to an int because of how statically it is typed
>slow ass garbage collection.
My FLAC decoder spends 7 ms total in GC when decompressing an entire file with over 1,000,000 samples, despite tons of per-frame allocations that I intend to remove later.
>lisp literally has no formal type system.
(declaim (ftype (function () fixnum) dilate))
(defun dilate () 42/100)
; in: DEFUN DILATE
; (SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA DILATE
; NIL
; (BLOCK DILATE 21/50))
;
; caught WARNING:
; Derived type of (21/50) is
; (VALUES (RATIONAL 21/50 21/50) &OPTIONAL),
; conflicting with the declared function return type
; (VALUES FIXNUM &REST T).
; See also:
; The SBCL Manual, Node "Handling of Types"
;
; compilation unit finished
; caught 1 WARNING condition
do you not know what a list is or is it that you dont know what an array is
fricking moron. Rust compiles this unless you use a very specific profile that asks for bounds checks.
fn main() {
let mut x: u8 = 0xff;
x = x + 1;
}
But go on, pretend the issue is about "lists" and "arrays."
2 years ago
Anonymous
frick I meant to write 1,000,000,000
in any case, the costliest operation is essentially read() rather than any particular GC function
>isn't adapted to write efficient, low-level code
It's not?
I remember there was something called Lisp Assembly Program (LAP) that was good for low level stuff.
I mean you could very easily write a "lisp" that just compiled to Rust, but while it would have a lispy syntax it wouldn't really be "a" lisp. Usually when people say lisp they imply common lisp. And even then I guess it's not impossible to do low-level stuff, but having tried it's definitely not the best tool for the job.
They're posers wasting everyones time. Liars, pretty much, by lying to people that Lisp is superior but it only takes a little poking to push finger through their paper balloon and see there is nothing behind it.
Is there any language that truly is what Lisp gays say Lisp is?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No. I think lispgays are so delusional becasue they are literally living in past, ruminating about lisp machines etc and reposting shit from half a century ago complaining about C. That's the issue really. They might even be right about their complaints and superiority if this was the year 1975. But it fricking isnt.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>in the past
Do you know, by any chance, what language are quantum computers programmed in,
2 years ago
Anonymous
Smalltalk
2 years ago
Anonymous
looks like assembly/c to me now that you made me look
2 years ago
Anonymous
>c
Cope
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if this was the year 1975. But it fricking isnt.
But it should be.
Everything that came after about 1980 is bloat anyway. BSD had TCP support in 1980, and it worked perfectly fine. We should start building Lisp machines again and take away smartphones.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>lisp machines
The OS they ran allowed every part of it being reprogrammed using lisp. This is why they were good. Modern cyber security doesn't really allow that. So it's just gonna be another unix clone but written in lisp. Doesn't make much sense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>lispgays in a nutshell, the post
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lisp Machine fetishism is gay. It's obsolete hardware design. Modern general-purpose hardware is more than fast enough to handle a fully Lisp-based OS.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Saying we need lisp machines is coping with the fact nobody wants to make a modern lisp os.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Saying we need lisp machines is coping with the fact nobody wants to make a modern lisp os.
>what is mezzano >inb4 'muh hobby project' (doesnt make it any less valid)
>more lines of code
Sucklessbros, I don't feel so good.
It isnt more lines of code that contributes to a larger binary, it is four lines of code that give specific instructions to the compiler to produce more predictable data in the final binary. That is the point of static typing. Dynamic typing provides too much room for error.
Posting classic thread, look at lispgays seethe. The longer the thread goes the crazier they get.
http://archive.is/mnbNo
Emacs only has a C core because Lisp is inherently slow due to being garbage collected. It makes more sense from a software quality and performance standpoint to implement core features in a slim, fast language like C and then stack a lisp interpreter on top of it.
They easily couldve remedied this by making Elisp not garbage collected though. All they had to do was make Elisp as performant as C, have a similar type system as C, and have full manual memory management like C. That way you can implement the core in Elisp and not be slow.
This is just Gnu being dumb Black folk.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>manual memory management >on an extension language in a text editor
Blackest gorilla Black person
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes? It isnt difficult to manage memory you Black person. It would be those extensions run faster in the end if Elisp were like this.
Why must you be lazy?
>what is mezzano >latest release July 2020
you can't expect one single developer to push out monthly builds for a research OS.
>It isnt more lines of code that contributes to a larger binary, it is four lines of code that give specific instructions to the compiler to produce more predictable data in the final binary. That is the point of static typing. Dynamic typing provides too much room for error
Suckless morons impose artificial limits on the number of lines the source code file has.
Thats fricking moronic lmao, this is why I use bspwm and not dwm
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It isnt more lines of code that contributes to a larger binary, it is four lines of code that give specific instructions to the compiler to produce more predictable data in the final binary. That is the point of static typing. Dynamic typing provides too much room for error
Suckless morons impose artificial limits on the number of lines the source code file has.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what is mezzano >latest release July 2020
2 years ago
Anonymous
>lispgays in a nutshell, the post
>1975
What great revolutions have their been in computing since 1975?
Today all operating systems are based on UNIX or DOS, and are positively archaic in their means of interaction.
Personal computing has only gone down hill in the past 4 decades.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What great revolutions have their been in computing since 1975?
Serverless, mobile, GPUs
2 years ago
Anonymous
I meant personal computing. Where lisp OSes are actually used.
You could infer this from that fact that these are all basically irrelevant to lisp.
You could run a lisp OS on a phone (though it wouldn't be better than any other phone OS since phones don't need advanced features), you could run a lisp OS on a GPU, and you could run lisp on a cloud.
These things are hardly revolutions anyway.
There's some backend server tech, something that lets you make phone calls / waste time on the go, and a thing that lets you draw stuff faster.
These haven't changed the way I use my personal computer in any meaningful way.
Even phones haven't really added anything new to the computing part, just let you do a subset of what you could before in more places.
I think pure functional languages are a good way to learn functional principles in "the way it's meant to be played", but use that knowledge in multiparadigm or OOP languages to make better code overall.
you're literally moronic
clojure has a functional fetish, but idk if even it is purely functional. for sure common lisp, elisp, racket, and schemes all support mutating state. Common lisp and guile scheme specifically both even have OOP facilities, and i don't remember if racket does as well, but seeing as it has libraries for literally everything, i wouldn't doubt it having something for OOP as well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but idk if even it is purely functional
It has a heavy focus on immutability, but is not functionally pure in the haskell sense. Rich talks about it here.
Does software written in Haskell work on Windows now?
Is there a Haskell job market now or is it still dead?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Im not a haskell programmer but you can search on the internet your first question and haskell by its nature it's a niche technology so probably still less jobs, but i think it is used on big tech companies for some things (facebook uses for handling spam)
>ai guy makes a language >people think it's just an ai language >ai winter >everyone forgets it exists
this is so sad bros 🙁 why do shitlangs get all the shilling everywhere?
>Those beginners want to feel important through reinventing the wheel.
Ignoring the fact that tools rewritten in rust tend to be better than the original.
Rust zooms and has a relatively clean set up story. Closest lisp equivalent is basically Racket (or clojure if you like downloading a bunch of binaries and not so lisp lisp?). Not that complicated to see why.
>lisp >linked lists >are not actually syntatically consistent >poor man's lambda calculus >macros are not a good way of automatizing code creationg and are very limiting on abstraction
But i still prefer lisp machines to the shit we have today.
because people who rewrite in rust are either learning rust and need something to practice or try to make a program more strict and memory safe.
Lisp is the opposite of the latter.
>opposite of the latter
>t. moron whose never used common lisp
>>t. moron whose never used common lisp
Why is it that devs who use common lisp are so unproductive?
They never ship what they're building.
idk man in the past month ive seen a regex compiler outperforming rust's regex compiler, constant work on a midi player, an entire web framework, and some guy maintaining an entire audio synthesizer, all projects from separate people
Easy; bounds checking isnt a feature that gets silently disabled (unlike rust).
do you not know what a list is or is it that you dont know what an array is
>ive seen a regex compiler outperforming rust's regex compiler
Where ? I want to see this
Is it this ?
https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare
Show me that place where lisp is strict?
Common Lisp is memory safe through slow ass garbage collection. Rust is zero overhead safety. There is inherent benefit to rust for memory safety.
Also lisp is the opposite of strict, lisp literally has no formal type system. Rust requires four lines of code to convert a string to an int because of how statically it is typed
>more lines of code
Sucklessbros, I don't feel so good.
>slow ass garbage collection.
My FLAC decoder spends 7 ms total in GC when decompressing an entire file with over 1,000,000 samples, despite tons of per-frame allocations that I intend to remove later.
>lisp literally has no formal type system.
(declaim (ftype (function () fixnum) dilate))
(defun dilate () 42/100)
; in: DEFUN DILATE
; (SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA DILATE
; NIL
; (BLOCK DILATE 21/50))
;
; caught WARNING:
; Derived type of (21/50) is
; (VALUES (RATIONAL 21/50 21/50) &OPTIONAL),
; conflicting with the declared function return type
; (VALUES FIXNUM &REST T).
; See also:
; The SBCL Manual, Node "Handling of Types"
;
; compilation unit finished
; caught 1 WARNING condition
fricking moron. Rust compiles this unless you use a very specific profile that asks for bounds checks.
fn main() {
let mut x: u8 = 0xff;
x = x + 1;
}
But go on, pretend the issue is about "lists" and "arrays."
frick I meant to write 1,000,000,000
in any case, the costliest operation is essentially read() rather than any particular GC function
Mostly because they haven't seen the light, but also lisp isn't adapted to write efficient, low-level code so in those cases Rust is ok
>isn't adapted to write efficient, low-level code
It's not?
I remember there was something called Lisp Assembly Program (LAP) that was good for low level stuff.
I mean you could very easily write a "lisp" that just compiled to Rust, but while it would have a lispy syntax it wouldn't really be "a" lisp. Usually when people say lisp they imply common lisp. And even then I guess it's not impossible to do low-level stuff, but having tried it's definitely not the best tool for the job.
Posting classic thread, look at lispgays seethe. The longer the thread goes the crazier they get.
http://archive.is/mnbNo
Checked.
What do you have against Lispgays?
They're posers wasting everyones time. Liars, pretty much, by lying to people that Lisp is superior but it only takes a little poking to push finger through their paper balloon and see there is nothing behind it.
Is there any language that truly is what Lisp gays say Lisp is?
No. I think lispgays are so delusional becasue they are literally living in past, ruminating about lisp machines etc and reposting shit from half a century ago complaining about C. That's the issue really. They might even be right about their complaints and superiority if this was the year 1975. But it fricking isnt.
>in the past
Do you know, by any chance, what language are quantum computers programmed in,
Smalltalk
looks like assembly/c to me now that you made me look
>c
Cope
>if this was the year 1975. But it fricking isnt.
But it should be.
Everything that came after about 1980 is bloat anyway. BSD had TCP support in 1980, and it worked perfectly fine. We should start building Lisp machines again and take away smartphones.
>lisp machines
The OS they ran allowed every part of it being reprogrammed using lisp. This is why they were good. Modern cyber security doesn't really allow that. So it's just gonna be another unix clone but written in lisp. Doesn't make much sense.
>lispgays in a nutshell, the post
Lisp Machine fetishism is gay. It's obsolete hardware design. Modern general-purpose hardware is more than fast enough to handle a fully Lisp-based OS.
Saying we need lisp machines is coping with the fact nobody wants to make a modern lisp os.
>what is mezzano
>inb4 'muh hobby project' (doesnt make it any less valid)
It isnt more lines of code that contributes to a larger binary, it is four lines of code that give specific instructions to the compiler to produce more predictable data in the final binary. That is the point of static typing. Dynamic typing provides too much room for error.
Emacs only has a C core because Lisp is inherently slow due to being garbage collected. It makes more sense from a software quality and performance standpoint to implement core features in a slim, fast language like C and then stack a lisp interpreter on top of it.
They easily couldve remedied this by making Elisp not garbage collected though. All they had to do was make Elisp as performant as C, have a similar type system as C, and have full manual memory management like C. That way you can implement the core in Elisp and not be slow.
This is just Gnu being dumb Black folk.
>manual memory management
>on an extension language in a text editor
Blackest gorilla Black person
Yes? It isnt difficult to manage memory you Black person. It would be those extensions run faster in the end if Elisp were like this.
Why must you be lazy?
you can't expect one single developer to push out monthly builds for a research OS.
Thats fricking moronic lmao, this is why I use bspwm and not dwm
>It isnt more lines of code that contributes to a larger binary, it is four lines of code that give specific instructions to the compiler to produce more predictable data in the final binary. That is the point of static typing. Dynamic typing provides too much room for error
Suckless morons impose artificial limits on the number of lines the source code file has.
>what is mezzano
>latest release July 2020
>1975
What great revolutions have their been in computing since 1975?
Today all operating systems are based on UNIX or DOS, and are positively archaic in their means of interaction.
Personal computing has only gone down hill in the past 4 decades.
>What great revolutions have their been in computing since 1975?
Serverless, mobile, GPUs
I meant personal computing. Where lisp OSes are actually used.
You could infer this from that fact that these are all basically irrelevant to lisp.
You could run a lisp OS on a phone (though it wouldn't be better than any other phone OS since phones don't need advanced features), you could run a lisp OS on a GPU, and you could run lisp on a cloud.
These things are hardly revolutions anyway.
There's some backend server tech, something that lets you make phone calls / waste time on the go, and a thing that lets you draw stuff faster.
These haven't changed the way I use my personal computer in any meaningful way.
Even phones haven't really added anything new to the computing part, just let you do a subset of what you could before in more places.
there is already a full-fledged game written in lisp, so a toast for lispgays, I think?
https://github.com/Shinmera/kandria
Good one anon.
/g/'s level really dropped it seems
>.t new gay
I think pure functional languages are a good way to learn functional principles in "the way it's meant to be played", but use that knowledge in multiparadigm or OOP languages to make better code overall.
>pure functional languages
lisp is not a purely functional language
common lisp is an OOP language
more like multiparadigm
lisp isn’t functional at all
lisp is literally lambda calculus
you're literally moronic
clojure has a functional fetish, but idk if even it is purely functional. for sure common lisp, elisp, racket, and schemes all support mutating state. Common lisp and guile scheme specifically both even have OOP facilities, and i don't remember if racket does as well, but seeing as it has libraries for literally everything, i wouldn't doubt it having something for OOP as well.
>but idk if even it is purely functional
It has a heavy focus on immutability, but is not functionally pure in the haskell sense. Rich talks about it here.
Haskell is closer to lambda calculus than lisp
Does software written in Haskell work on Windows now?
Is there a Haskell job market now or is it still dead?
Im not a haskell programmer but you can search on the internet your first question and haskell by its nature it's a niche technology so probably still less jobs, but i think it is used on big tech companies for some things (facebook uses for handling spam)
>IQfy lisp is useless
Meanwhile Clojure currently runs back ends for major companies like Netflix, Facebook, Time and banks.
fennel is nice if you use Lua. Lisps are great. I know the community has some loud autists but it is comfy to use
Checked.
This makes common lispers seethe so much.
Just started learning clojure as a fairly large tangent to a school project on the JVM (been wanting to into functional programming).
Any ideas for project ideas to for clojure for learning?
What do you like? You can do anything from a file manager with a GUI to a logic programming language by implementing micro kanren
you need big testicles to understand lisp
>ai guy makes a language
>people think it's just an ai language
>ai winter
>everyone forgets it exists
this is so sad bros 🙁 why do shitlangs get all the shilling everywhere?
lisp is cringe af no cap
Shit thread
Rust is a meme language, pushed first by Google and then later by novices. Those beginners want to feel important through reinventing the wheel.
>Those beginners want to feel important through reinventing the wheel.
Ignoring the fact that tools rewritten in rust tend to be better than the original.
Rust zooms and has a relatively clean set up story. Closest lisp equivalent is basically Racket (or clojure if you like downloading a bunch of binaries and not so lisp lisp?). Not that complicated to see why.
daily reminder that rust is unsafe https://drewdevault.com/2022/05/12/Supply-chain-when-will-we-learn.html
morons and trannies weite Rust.
Loser NEETs who are big brained but failed to get a job use Lisp.
True gigachads use Haskell.
/thread
>lisp
>linked lists
>are not actually syntatically consistent
>poor man's lambda calculus
>macros are not a good way of automatizing code creationg and are very limiting on abstraction
But i still prefer lisp machines to the shit we have today.
Functional languages are for autists.
>t. doesn't know what lisp is
Probably because lisp sucks balls
The only advantage that lisp has over rust is not being rust.