[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp
From: |
C Y |
Subject: |
RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:06:19 -0800 (PST) |
--- Bill Page <address@hidden> wrote:
> On November 17, 2005 3:06 PM C Y wrote:
> >
> > To a point that may be true, but making old code run by
> > implementing layers that mimic the behavior of older lisps
> > is not something I would argue is a good thing.
>
> But Axiom has had just such a compatibility layer for a long
> time and it has served Axiom well, otherwise we wouldn't be
> using Axiom today.
Right, but Axiom is now open source - the clarity and transparency of
the code now becomes much more important than for a commercial project.
Being just functional is insufficient for open source (IMHO anyway)
but in a commercial program the source code is never seen, so as long
as it is functional it is no problem.
> > It makes the code much harder to understand, because to work
> > with any given part of the code you have to first understand
> > what version of lisp that part of the code was written for
> > (and consequently what behavioral assumptions were made) and
> > then try and work with it.
>
> I think you may be arguing based on a rather unclear idea of
> just how flexible a language lisp is - any version of lisp
> and especially ANSI common lisp, which for the most part is a
> superset of other lisps, rather than a refinement. (Notice
> that I said: for the most part.) To understand any lisp code
> (pick almost anything off the web) and you will find that to
> understand how something works you first have to understand
> the author's design.
True. I make no claim to being an expert lisp programmer, and for this
reason I may be overestimating the issues involved. However, I know I
would be very wary of behavioral inconsistencies between changes in the
standards and how they would impact the coding requirements.
> > For younger coders especially, that can be a high hurdle -
> > they have no knowledge of obsolete standards.
>
> I think that is wrong. Do you really think that learning to
> program in Fortran is made seriously more difficult because
> the year 2000 Fortran standard is radically different than
> the year 1964 Fortran standard? Standards are important for
> very different reasons, but learning to program is not one
> of them.
I know if I had learned to program in 2000 Fortran I would be very wary
of assumptions and behaviors learned when editing 1964 Fortran, and
possibly subtle bugs I could introduce by using the wrong assumptions
when working on the code. But I might be overestimating the problems -
I have no experience to base a judgement on.
> I think you have it backwards. Layers, when done properly, do
> not increase the complexity of the code, they decrease it. I
> haven't looked much as Maxima, but I suspect that some of
> the "complexity" that you talk about in Maxima is due the use
> of a design that does not take advantage of this design idea.
Probably true. Certainly, it was not modular enough - almost
everything is jammed into one huge lisp package, for example. I am
unsure of whether introducing language variations would have
contributed anything.
> It has been claimed here that the Maxima source is now fully
> compliant with the Common Lisp standard. Is there any
> information available from the Maxima developers about what
> changes were necessary to attain this goal?
I think this was a very gradual process. The cvs history might offer
some insight, but I myself don't know too much about the issues
involved.
I should pose this question of defining languages within lisp on
comp.lang.lisp and see what the real gurus think. Or maybe it has been
asked already - I'll see what I can find.
Cheers,
CY
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, (continued)
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, Weiss, Juergen, 2005/11/17
- Re: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, root, 2005/11/17
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, Bill Page, 2005/11/17
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, C Y, 2005/11/17
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, Bill Page, 2005/11/17
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp,
C Y <=
- Re: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, root, 2005/11/17
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, Bill Page, 2005/11/17
- Re: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, root, 2005/11/18
- Re: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, C Y, 2005/11/18
- RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, Bill Page, 2005/11/18
- Re: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, C Y, 2005/11/18
RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, Weiss, Juergen, 2005/11/17
RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp, Weiss, Juergen, 2005/11/17