Advertisement Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

140 Neutral

About kordova

  • Rank
  1. kordova


  2. kordova

    Inventing on Principle - amazing video!

    There was/is something that did exactly what I was describing, though to say "is" I have to concede that while you can buy it and get it to run, it is extremely dated, if not "dead". It is Genera OS.
  3. kordova

    Inventing on Principle - amazing video!

    When did they ever provide this level of development? LISP machines? I don't think LISP machines provided anywhere near the level of interactive execution and procedural programming we're discussing ( nothing I've found on the Internet or from reading Wikipedia anyways). Nothing like this have been developed yet, only glimpses here and there. If this is to be a reality the hard work has to be done and it's fully possible as I laid out, there are no hardware or software barriers. It would be nice to leverage existing technology but nothing has been developed like this, well maybe Haskel and their advance functional programming models comes close.. -ddn [/quote] Take a running process that you didn't write, say your filesystem browser. You can point to that, stop its execution, be directed to its source code, modify bits of it and interact with it without ever relaunching anything. To a deep extent, you can dive into system calls as well. That was implemented. It is implemented in a smaller way (for obvious reasons) in Allegro CL and LispWorks. Probably also the Mac Clozure IDE, though I have minimal experience with that.
  4. kordova

    Inventing on Principle - amazing video!

    I agree with this and your other statements. I meant this more in the context of swiftcoder's more conventional concerns about maintenance and stability. The notion of complete look through and ability to recompile on-the-fly any component from hardware drivers up on a multi-user system lends itself to security concerns. LISP OSs avoided this discussion by being single-user systems. I wouldn't personally actually be concerned about security in the domains where I'd find this useful.
  5. kordova

    Inventing on Principle - amazing video!

    I don't think this was some logical progression where the other ones were weeded out. It's more that for various reasons (not all technical, though those were there as well) that avenue of exploration just ceased almost altogether. Emacs isn't really a great example, because without integration, you end up with what it is now. An independent mini-OS sitting in your terminal. It does not play nicely nor is it consistent with the window manager, Well, I'd also point it out as security nightmare, though I'd estimate most machines are effectively single-user anyway. To answer your question, there's nothing necessarily wrong with what you are proposing, though when we mention the entire OS, we are probably including the UI which may run but is not actually modifiable in user space. Depending on your profession, access to exactly how interrupts are handled, redefining/hooking into any/all system calls and the underlying hardware might have non-academic benefits.
  6. kordova

    Inventing on Principle - amazing video!

    It's a Turing machine, we get it. But quite frankly, whether in software or hardware, a Turing machine is still a Turing machine. [/quote] What does Turing-completeness have to do with anything? That we can accomplish this with any language/machine? Are we going to skip over the barrier to implementing something like this in most languages/OSs? If that's all you have to say, I'd argue that you don't get it. LISP machines were (are) far from perfect, but there's something magical about being able to redefine/add/extend functionality to the editor you're using _in_ the editor you're using. Or your documentation browser, web browser or just about any other application, not to mention significant portions of the OS. Outside of tinkering with an ancient LISP OS, you can still get a feel for it from modern products like LispWorks and Allegro. I use MatLab and Visual Studio regularly, but some of the things I am able to do with LispWorks, despite a lot of clunkiness, can save a lot of time and allow me to bend the tool to me/the project as opposed to the opposite (or dealing with very chunky SDKs/APIs that still require re-compilation, etc). I once used a SmallTalk system, whose name escapes me, that encompassed similar ideas. It's not necessarily dependent on Lisp, Common Lisp is far from my ideal Lisp, but there are not too many alternatives, yet. More languages are becoming "alive", in the sense that the compiler exists at runtime and you can poke around just about anything while it is executing, but we're not quite there. Certainly, most languages still do not encourage "dangerous," otherwise "unnecessary" functionality that compiler macros and vanilla macros provide for. I'm amazed that we don't see more of these living systems in Ruby, Python and Javascript. Demos like in the OP come up pretty frequently in smaller circles, but I'm still surprised we don't see more concerted efforts at "living" IDEs and the like. Yeah, you _can_ do that in a lot of isolated contexts on Linux, OS X and Windows, but it is no where near as easy or as significant as it was when it was a genuine focus. Turing-completeness is entirely irrelevant to that line of discussion. We still teach Scheme, and there is still a large body of projects using various dialects of Lisp - close enough. The capitalisation (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.[/quote]I know, I use Common Lisp professionally. Even in the CL, Scheme and Clojure communities, LISP is understood to be the historical thing the past and Lisp is generally accepted to mean CL, unless otherwise stated.
  7. kordova

    Inventing on Principle - amazing video!

    Functional programming doesn't have to mean LISP. If you've ever used the STL algorithms, a foreach loop, or a lambda function, you are using functional programming techniques. And the STL algorithms are a great example of just how much trouble can be saved by applying functional techniques to a problem, even in a language that is generally not all that functionally-inclined. [/quote]No one has used LISP since the 1980's. Lisp, or Common Lisp, is not functional.
  8. kordova

    Multiple development PC's

    Why not mercurial or git for dotfile/config as well? I've been using git for that with great results.
  9. kordova

    Multiple development PC's

    Git rocks! I find it amazing that so many people are still using SVN, there is no way I could go back to that.[/quote] Partial clone by path (not possible in git, as far as I know). Checking in 500Mb+ binaries. To answer the original question, I use various combinations of git, svn, network shares and rsync.
  10. kordova

    Setting up a Linux Server

    You can find a number of up-to-date articles in SliceHost's articles.
  11. kordova

    where's that funny guy?

    silly dumass poppet, yuo can find him on fongerchat.
  12. Quote:Original post by Brian Sandberg Absolutely. Lisp is primarily good for changing the way you think. When it's time to get everyday stuff done, it's rarely the tool you'll want to reach for.When it is time to get stuff that could be implemented in any language, then it is probably the wrong language. When you start to feel the restraints imposed upon you by Blah + XML solutions, then you'll be ready to actually learn and appreciate it.
  13. Quote:Original post by godmodder Agreed that it has a complete different way of doing things, but programming large systems with a language like Lisp tends to be a nightmare. Tends to? Can I see some citations? Or are you just guessing based on your very limited exposure? Quote:Original post by godmodder But come on, just look at the code for example: it looks like a mess with all those parentheses!Oh, so you just haven't written more than an assignment or two in Lisp. You're right though, I can see where ;:(){}*& are immediately intuitive. Quote:Original post by godmodder If there's one thing that's very important for code is that it is readable and understandable. In fact, I'm a strong believer of the fact that code should document for itself.Where I am, we leverage specification-as-implementation.
  14. kordova

    So I wrote a Lisp

    In case you didn't know, I'd also check out IronScheme which is a CLR implementation. There is also Yarr, ClojureCLR and others to learn from. Otherwise, search for tiny lisp which I believe uses third party GC.
  15. kordova

    Lines of code in a lifetime

    Quote:Original post by FireSickle yeah, I wrote macros to build class objects based off of and to interact with database tables). ... I still feel like I could be more productive. Experiment with using a language that doesn't require you to go outside of it to be productive in it.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!