Citat:
|
Citat:
Људи се плаше заграда, шта ћемо. ф |
Brada mi nije seda, nije mi veme za Lisp josh uvek ;)
|
Ovaj programmer_hierarchy je nesto najgluplje vidjeno u modernoj istoriji :)
Hahahahahah Ajax i javaScript hijerarhijski iznad Jave :D:D:D Ruby u rangu sa Com, sitno ispod ASMa :D:D:D Cudo da mIRC scripting nije na pocetku svega :) |
Citat:
|
Citat:
|
A da li je rad u AutoCADu korisna delatnost? AutoLISP je varijanta LISPa koji je ugradjen u AutoCAD.
|
Citat:
Шта је објективно тачно? Заграде су довољне за описивање свега дрвенастог. А то значи структура података (листи, дрвећа), али и програма (секвенци, петљи, селекција), затим датотека (ИксМЛ на пример), објеката и наслеђивања, и тако даље, и тако ближе. Што би то требало да буде данас нама битно, кад су заграде тако одвратне? Зато што су људи користећи овај језик — који нема вештачких ограничења — смислили доста ствари које се реинкарнирају кроз модерне језике (што рекох изнад). Зато би рецепт за успех био:
Citat:
ф |
================================================== =======
Why Lisp is not my favorite programming language. ================================================== ======= (In the following, "Lisp" refers to ANSI Common Lisp) This article is a collection of facts anyone interested in Lisp should know about. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 1: The fastest Lisp implementations are slow (See any third-party benchmark: The Great Computer Language Shootout comes to mind, but the Coyote Culch test is in my optinion even better: it is a professional-quality interlanguage benchmark) As a rule of thumb, the most hand-optimized Lisp programs will be longer than their C/C++ equivalents, and will run 2-20 times slower using the best compilers. This alone is half the truth. To get such performance out of Lisp, one has to add type declarations and shed all safety checks, which is analogous to casting /everything/ to (void*) in C. This is needed to turn off type tag checks at run time. Sadly, Lisp code that was posted to USENET by Pascal Bourguignon for the Coyote Gulch test did not measure up even to these low expectations and was 31.6 times slower than C++, using CMUCL 18d as a Lisp compiler and Intel C++ 7.1 (with -O3 -xW optimization switches) as a C++ compiler on Pentium IV. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 2: No one but a small clique of fanatics likes it No matter how odd or perverted the cause, there will be followers. In fact, the odder the cause, the fewer, but more fervent its followers are. Look at any religious cult, like Scientology, or take a peek in comp.lang.lisp and listen to Lisp zealots talk about 'making sacrifices for the cause' (in all seriousness!). Look up "a public apology" thread started by Pascal Costanza as an excellent example. ZEALOTS STOP AT NOTHING TO ADVANCE THEIR CAUSE, AND PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANYONE WITH A DISSENTING OPTINION IS THE FIRST THING IN THEIR ARSENAL. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 3: The vast majority of people who study Lisp in school, never want to use it again. You should already know this if you studied or taught CS where Lisp courses were offered. Even those students who are fond of Scheme are usually disgusted by Lisp. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 4: Lisp is the most complicated language in the world It has the biggest standard specification document, which is also the most obfuscated one - something a lawyer pretending to be a programmer could have written. C, C++ and Fortran 95 specs are much better written, by people who can communicate directly and eloquently. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 5: Despite its size, Lisp does not define threads or GUI. Large libraries are very useful when programming, however Lisp's many functions and macros hardly qualify. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 6: There is no open-source cross-platform native-code compiler It was suggested that GCL (GNU Common Lisp) is the only exception. However, it needs to be noted, that despite its name, GCL is a dialect of its own, is quite slow even by Lisp standards, and most alarmingly, unlike with other compilers, its license requires your, programmer, code to be GPL if you distribute it with GCL. (Because you will need to use GCL both as a compiler and a run time library) --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 7: There is no standard C interface. C has become a lingua franca for interlanguage APIs. It may be unfair, but not having a standard C interface is a serious problem for any language. EPILOGUE: I do not hate Lisp, and I think it was a fine tool decades ago, and I am not going to say "Lisp sucks". However, now that we have superior languages for coding close to the iron, high-performance computing, number crunching, algorithms, scripting and gluing components together, Lisp should be finally retired. |
Ах, блади хел, морам одма сутра у фирми да кажем да треба да повучемо све оне штампаче које смо продали, и да им фирмвер реимплементирамо у ПХП-у, јер је лисп демоде.
ф |
Vreme je GMT +2. Trenutno vreme je 02:01. |
Powered by vBulletin® Verzija 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © DevProTalk. All Rights Reserved.