 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I can't figure out why. Functions are first-class in Lisp, but beyond
> that there's nothing functional about it.
Early versions of LISP were functional. It was for a long time the *only*
popular language you could write anything that looked like functional code in.
Which is the functional language: FORTRAN, C, COBOL, or LISP?
> I wasn't aware that there are any multi-million line mission-critical
> production-grade systems written in Lisp. I suppose there might be
> somewhere. I'm certainly not aware of any well-known commercial entities
> telling everybody that they should use Lisp.
Yahoo was originally all in LISP before it got sold, including the store.
Several large video games are written in LISP. I think the right answer is
that more people use LISP than you think, but they don't advertise it
because it's a competitive advantage.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure. But people often reverse the word "niche" as a kind of polite
>> way of saying "hopelessly unsuccessful". ;-)
>
> I can't help people don't know english. :-)
I love the way people use "legacy" to mean "that ancient hunk of junk
that we somehow ended up still having to support".
>> People claim that Unix (or maybe specificaly Linux) is insanely
>> reliable, and that's almost all pure C.
>
> I've never heard anyone claim that. I've heard Linux people bash
> Windows, and I've heard people brag about how reliable Linux is,
When Linux first became popular, this was *the reason* to switch to
Linux. Everything is so reliable and works perfectly without crashing
every 12 seconds. (Never mind that they don't have drivers for your disk
controller yet, never mind your graphics card... who cares about that?)
> but
> it's certainly not reliable enough that it'll run ten years worth of
> upgrades without a reboot or loss of service, unless you go to something
> like a Tandem.
I can't say I've tried.
>>>> Some people might refer to that as "luck". ;-) Apparently there are
>>>> Windows 95 systems with this kind of uptime.
>>>
>>> No there aren't. All the 16-bit Windows machines had a seconds counter
>>> that wrapped after 42 days and crashed the computer.
>>
>> Got a reference for that?
>
> I'm sorry your computer can't get through to Google. I hope your
> connectivity gets restored soon.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-222391.html
...which links to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q216641/ which says
that they fixed this problem 10 years ago.
>>> And if A connects to B, then B
>>> passes a connection to C to A, A needs a connection to C anyway.
>
>> What makes you think that?
>
> Because B may pass to A a connection to a mailbox on C.
Sorry, I misread your sentence.
> Oh, I see what you're asking. I assume they're smart enough not to send
> passwords in the clear to machines that haven't proven they already know
> the password.
I'd like to believe that... *shuffle*
>>> Why do you make mistakes like that? How often do you write code and use
>>> reserved works as variable names?
>>
>> More often than you'd think.
>
> Wow.
Hey, we all make mistakes...
(Like the time I discovered that "default" is a reserved word in
Haskell. I had to look at the language spec to find out what it's
actually for, since nobody ever actually uses it.)
> C was designed to be a portable that was *not* abstracted from the
> machine. Therefore, it got ported a lot, often as the first HLL ported
> to a new architecture. The other languages only got ported to
> architectures being used for that particular type of computing.
>
> When people tried to make better languages than C, they tended to pile
> so much extra stuff into it that would make it appropriate for both
> machine-level stuff and high-level applications that it turned into a
> monster.
I guess the answer is only obvious in retrospect...
>> Wait - the CPU on my PC *doesn't* process the incomming packets??
>
> Not packets not destined for your machine, no. WTF do you think a MAC
> address is for?
For telling you which machine a packet is addressed to? You still have
to *read* the MAC address to find out if that's you, surely.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (Like the time I discovered that "default" is a reserved word in
> Haskell. I had to look at the language spec to find out what it's
> actually for, since nobody ever actually uses it.)
I must admit, that's the one reserved word I don't infrequently use for a
variable by mistake. I got over it after the first five or ten times, tho.
> For telling you which machine a packet is addressed to? You still have
> to *read* the MAC address to find out if that's you, surely.
Who is "you" in that sentence? Your CPU? No.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Which is the functional language: FORTRAN, C, COBOL, or LISP?
That's like saying "which is the high-level language: machine code,
assembly language, or C?"
Oh, wait...
> I think the right
> answer is that more people use LISP than you think, but they don't
> advertise it because it's a competitive advantage.
That's a pretty glowing recommendation for Lisp. Assuming it's actually
true of course. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Which is the functional language: FORTRAN, C, COBOL, or LISP?
>
> That's like saying "which is the high-level language: machine code,
> assembly language, or C?"
More like "which is the portable one?"
At the time it was written, LISP was the only language that *could* be
programmed in a functional way. You can't write functional COBOL or
functional FORTRAN.
Later, constructs were added to let to LISP you assign values and such.
> That's a pretty glowing recommendation for Lisp. Assuming it's actually
> true of course. ;-)
I think you'd be surprised at some of the languages used in closed-source
projects.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> >> Which is the functional language: FORTRAN, C, COBOL, or LISP?
> >
> > That's like saying "which is the high-level language: machine code,
> > assembly language, or C?"
>
> More like "which is the portable one?"
>
> At the time it was written, LISP was the only language that *could* be
> programmed in a functional way. You can't write functional COBOL or
> functional FORTRAN.
>
> Later, constructs were added to let to LISP you assign values and such.
>
> > That's a pretty glowing recommendation for Lisp. Assuming it's actually
> > true of course. ;-)
>
> I think you'd be surprised at some of the languages used in closed-source
> projects.
yep, a Lisp-like language was used by Naughty Dog to script AI in the Crash
Bandicoot games and even as far as the more recent Uncharted games by same
company for PS3. OTOH, it was built as a culture within the company previous to
developments of python and Lua as more usable alternatives for the task...
this was in the 90's and early 2000's, when Lisp kind of made a resurgence
thanks to Paul Graham and his successful account of how Lisp allowed him beat
the averages.
Lisp is pretty much dead nowadays, even the flagship company for it, ITA
Software, today employs much java, python and C++... Lisp is mostly legacy.
even still, I'd say it's still used more than haskell... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> yep, a Lisp-like language was used by Naughty Dog to script AI in the Crash
> Bandicoot games and even as far as the more recent Uncharted games by same
> company for PS3. OTOH, it was built as a culture within the company previous to
> developments of python and Lua as more usable alternatives for the task...
I have never actually been in a large game company, but it is my
understanding that using all kinds of interpreted (or sometimes bytecompiled)
scripting languages is rather usual in games.
The core game engine as well as many of the middleware libraries (such
as the physics engine) are, AFAIK, usually written in C++ (with many C
libraries thrown in), but many of the higher-level functionalities are
often written in whatever scripting language the team likes (such as
Lua, Python, or a custom language of the particular game engine). It makes
it easier to change things (such as AI behavior) without having to recompile
the project. Also "scripted events" can literally have a double meaning:
Besides following a pre-written "script", they are often implemented using
a scripting language.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/15/2011 7:42, Warp wrote:
> The core game engine as well as many of the middleware libraries (such
> as the physics engine) are, AFAIK, usually written in C++ (with many C
> libraries thrown in), but many of the higher-level functionalities are
> often written in whatever scripting language the team likes
Unreal engine is exactly like that, yes. All the collision stuff and
animation sequencing and things are done in system languages, while the code
for what to do (like, "Spawn here, then use the RUN animation until you get
within X distance of the player") are in Unreal Script.
It's pretty cool. All the documentation is online.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The core game engine as well as many of the middleware libraries (such
>> as the physics engine) are, AFAIK, usually written in C++ (with many C
>> libraries thrown in), but many of the higher-level functionalities are
>> often written in whatever scripting language the team likes
>
> Unreal engine is exactly like that, yes. All the collision stuff and
> animation sequencing and things are done in system languages, while the
> code for what to do (like, "Spawn here, then use the RUN animation until
> you get within X distance of the player") are in Unreal Script.
Valve say they did something similar with [at least] the particle
effects in Team Fortress 2. They made it text-scriptable, so that
animators can design new particle effects for their weapons and models
and stuff without having to call a C++ programmer to write the animation
code.
> It's pretty cool. All the documentation is online.
Uh... Valve makes their Source SDK *available* online, but it can only
be considered *documented* for sufficiently small values of "documentation".
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2011 3:11, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Uh... Valve makes their Source SDK *available* online, but it can only be
> considered *documented* for sufficiently small values of "documentation".
That's the difference between buying a commercial engine designed for
writing your own games, and buying someone's finished game and them throwing
in the SDK for free.
Speaking of Erlang...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
