«

Ola Bini wrote:
> Kristof Bastiaensen wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:51:08 +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>>
>> Lisp is definitely not a core language. The standard is about 1100
>> pages,
>> so it contains most of of the stuff you would expect, string handling,
>>
>
> You seem to confuse the language Common Lisp with the mathematical
> concept Lisp. Lisp is seven operators and a one-page denotional
> semantic definition. That's about as small and core as it gets.
Yes ... I wish I could remember who made that distinction and when. In
any event, I'm guessing it was in the days of Lisp 1.5, which is
certainly a core language. IIRC Lisp 1.5 had some primitive string
handling, and some implementations even did floating point. But this was
well before Common Lisp 1, Common Lisp 2 or the ANS standard.

As I noted in an earlier post, I'm now off looking for the Ruby "core
language".

Hi --

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> wrote:
>>
>> Whoops, I was wrong; it was 1993. See
>> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin.../ruby-talk/382
> Thanks!! In February of 1993, I was just starting on the project that has
> consumed most of my "paid programming" time since then. It started out as
> Korn shell augmented with "gawk" for the more complicated pieces, then got
> migrated to Perl 4 as soon as I discovered Perl 4. It picked up the R
> component about 2000, but it's still mostly Perl 4. The Java 1.1 program was
> done in 1997.
>
> So, going back to another thread, it looks like the "core language" of Ruby
> is the object model and the Perl features. Is there by any chance a place
> where I could get the Ruby 1.0 source? That might be *very* interesting.

ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.0. Nothing before 1.0, as far as I
can find.


David

--
http://www.rubypowerandlight.com => Ruby/Rails training & consultancy
----> SEE SPECIAL DEAL FOR RUBY/RAILS USERS GROUPS! <-----
http://dablog.rubypal.com => D[avid ]A[. ]B[lack's][ Web]log
http://www.manning.com/black => book, Ruby for Rails
http://www.rubycentral.org => Ruby Central, Inc.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:08:29 +0900, Ola Bini wrote:

> Kristof Bastiaensen wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:51:08 +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>>
>> Lisp is definitely not a core language. The standard is about 1100 pages,
>> so it contains most of of the stuff you would expect, string handling,
>>
>
> You seem to confuse the language Common Lisp with the mathematical
> concept Lisp. Lisp is seven operators and a one-page denotional semantic
> definition. That's about as small and core as it gets.

No, I don't. The post I replied to was mentioning practical programming
languages, not mathematical concepts. Lisp can mean the family of
languages, to which Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, and scheme belong, and the
programming language Common Lisp. But since he was mentioning scheme as a
different language, I concluded that he meant the last. But I should have
clarified that it my post though.

Regards,
Kristof

>> On 8/5/06, Daniel Martin <> wrote:
>>> This appears to be the continuation of some conversation / flamewar
>>> somewhere else. Why bring this crud over here? Is there some reason
>>> that we should care?

No. It looks more like trolling in an incoherent way, than a discussion with
meaningful information about lisp.

> Rick DeNatale wrote:
>> I've only recently subscribed to this list, after just sampling it for
>> a while, and I've been wondering the same thing about the apparently
>> endless discussion of the merits of C, C++, Ocaml, and Java

Apparently some people do care. If you don't, then why reading the
thread?

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:49:20 +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Whatever you opinions about any programming language are, Ruby is
> implemented in C at the moment, so C at least has *that* going for it!
>

Exactly! It is quite useful to know C, for example to write bindings to
existing libraries, or to rewrite the parts of your program that are slow
in C.

Regards,
Kristof

On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:55:05PM +0900, Neumann wrote:
> There's a discussion related to this going on over at Lambda the
> Ultimate that you might enjoy:
> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1646

While I know a fair bit about Lisp dialects such as CLisp and Scheme, I
don't actually know the languages per se. As such, I find it difficult
to be certain I'm not missing something. Judging by what I do know,
though, it seems likely to me that the way UCBLogo handles the
parentheses "problem" is pretty damned optimal: you don't need
parentheses because expressions have default lengths (which default can
be circumvented by adding the parentheses back in).

I'm not about to go joining a Lisp mailing list to make that statement
without knowing more about "proper" Lisps, however. Of course.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:05:03AM +0900, Charles Hoffman wrote:
>
> Hmmm... I had rather thought that functional-style languages were more
> common for writing language interpreters/compilers in. Aren't Lisp guys
> always on about using Lisp to write another language more specific to
> the problem domain, and working from there?

Err . . . not exactly. It's more like in Lisp you create a
domain-specific "jargon" that allows you to abstract the problem further
according to the needs of the moment -- like using a particularly long
lever to gain the ability to move larger things with less "heavy
lifting" power provided by you, the programmer.

As one uses a higher-level programming language rather than moving bits
around one at a time with a pair of tweezers when one wants to (for
instance) edit some text, so one uses Lisp to create domain-specific
syntaxes for further abstracting things so that not even the extra work
of using that "higher-level" programming language is necessary. At
least, that's my understanding: it's not about literally writing a
compiler for a language, then writing programs in that language.

I could be wrong, though.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

Kristof Bastiaensen <> writes:

>>> On 8/5/06, Daniel Martin <> wrote:
>>>> This appears to be the continuation of some conversation / flamewar
>>>> somewhere else. Why bring this crud over here? Is there some reason
>>>> that we should care?
>
> No. It looks more like trolling in an incoherent way, than a discussion with
> meaningful information about lisp.

Looking up other posts by on google groups is
informative. It *looks* like the poster is continuing some
pre-existing conversation, but he's not. However, I'm not sure that
this is trolling in the sense of "the poster is consciously trying to
arouse an emotional response", unless the entire persona of
is one long extended troll.

There's lisp macro activity, which would be annoying on this list to
begin with, then there's poor lisp macro activity, which attempts to
wax on about how wonderful lisp macros are without providing more than
trivial examples (easily done with higher-level functions), then
there's incoherent advocacy, which is what we have here. (not merely
incoherent from the bizarre spelling and atrocious grammar, but also
incoherent at a structural level - he can't decide if he's defending
lisp as a wonderful language or as a sieve to separate the
uebermenschen from the rest of humanity)

Anyway. This is entirely much more time spent on this poster than I
meant to spend.

Hi,

In message "Re: the perens in lisp dilects is there for a reson... macros."
on Mon, 7 Aug 2006 03:04:47 +0900, writes:

|Ruby's birthday is traditionally
|February 1994 (I can't remember the exact day),

It was 1993-02-24 for the record.

|and I seem to remember
|that that predates Java, but I'm not sure.

The first release date of the Java language white paper was somewhere
in 1994, so you might think Ruby predates Java, but in fact:

* the development of the Java language (formerly named Oak language)
started in 1991, if I remember correctly.
* the first public release of Ruby was December 1995.

As a conclusion, Java is slightly older than Ruby.

matz.

Hi,

In message "Re: the perens in lisp dilects is there for a reson... macros."
on Mon, 7 Aug 2006 07:41:37 +0900, writes:

|> So, going back to another thread, it looks like the "core language" of Ruby
|> is the object model and the Perl features. Is there by any chance a place
|> where I could get the Ruby 1.0 source? That might be *very* interesting.
|
|ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.0. Nothing before 1.0, as far as I
|can find.

I lost most of the old copies when I moved jobs (and due to disk
crash) ruby-0.49 was the oldest source package I have. It's way
before public release (0.95). I have just put it into

ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.0/ruby-0.49.tar.gz

It's not guaranteed to run properly though.

matz.

Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Yukihiro Matsumoto <> writes:
>
>
>> In message "Re: the perens in lisp dilects is there for a reson... macros."
>> on Mon, 7 Aug 2006 07:41:37 +0900, writes:
>>
>> |> So, going back to another thread, it looks like the "core language" of Ruby
>> |> is the object model and the Perl features. Is there by any chance a place
>> |> where I could get the Ruby 1.0 source? That might be *very* interesting.
>> |
>> |ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.0. Nothing before 1.0, as far as I
>> |can find.
>>
>> I lost most of the old copies when I moved jobs (and due to disk
>> crash) ruby-0.49 was the oldest source package I have. It's way
>> before public release (0.95). I have just put it into
>>
>> ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.0/ruby-0.49.tar.gz
>>
>> It's not guaranteed to run properly though.
>>
>
> It's very interesting to compare the sample/ directories of 0.49 and
> 1.8.4.
>
>
>> matz.
>>
I found the source for 1.0. Sadly, gcc 3.4.6 refuses to compile it --
complains about "varargs.h" not used any more.