Is LISP dying? 
Author Message
 Is LISP dying?


Quote:

>+---------------
>| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
>+---------------

>Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
>How many Forths are there?  Even a dozen?

There were a half-dozen Forths for Atari 8 bit, and about a half-dozen
for Atari ST.  

I count 28 distinct implementations at
< http://www.*-*-*.com/ ;, and that list is decidedly not
comprehensive.
--
Lisp Users:
Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.



Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:



> >+---------------
> >| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
> >+---------------

> >Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
> >How many Forths are there?  Even a dozen?

> There were a half-dozen Forths for Atari 8 bit, and about a half-dozen
> for Atari ST.

> I count 28 distinct implementations at
> <http://www.forth.org/compilers.html>, and that list is decidedly not
> comprehensive.

I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
Forth) for KIM-1. Also Aforth standalone for Z-80. Lately, I haven't
seen them on any list.

Quote:
> --
> Lisp Users:
> Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.


--
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------


Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

+---------------
| I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
| Forth) for KIM-1...
+---------------

Uh... Having ported Doug Wrege's version of PDP-8 FOCAL/F to the PDP-10
Spring 1971, I can say with some confidence that FOCAL isn't even *vaguely*
Forth-like -- it's much closer to JOSS & MUMPS, and in fact, was developed
by Richey Lary following his participation in the first installation of
MUMPS at Mass Gen.  While (old, original) MUMPS had "string" as it's only
data type (like Tcl), FOCAL had "floating point" as its only data type.
(In fact, mutable "strings" were emulated with arrays of floating-point
numbers, each array element representing one character.)

Like JOSS & MUMPS & BASIC & fortran -- but unlike Forth -- FOCAL has
traditional infix arithmetic with "the usual" operator priorities,
that is, the assignment "SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468" is interpreted as
"SET A=((B+(C*4.35))-(D/2.468))".

-Rob

p.s. My FOCAL-10 port involved some serious rewriting of the internal
FOCAL lexical subroutines SORTC & SORTJ to become two-instruction macros
that made heavy use of the PDP-10 byte pointer stuff and "byte strips"
to encode enumerated character equivalence classes. (Hey, it made it
run 25 times faster!) It used some really hairy "MACRO-10" (the PDP-10
assembler) macros to build those tables at compile time. Imagine my
immense delight when I was exposed to Common Lisp and learned that:

1. The style of table-building I'd been writing in PDP-10 assembler
   could be done *much* more naturally -- almost trivially, in fact --
   with Lisp macros; and

2. That Common Lisp had preserved at least a little of the flavor of
   the PDP-10 variable-sized byte operations... with the same names,
   even: LDB, DPB, BYTE, BYTE-SIZE, BYTE-POSITION.  Way cool!

I just wish I'd gotten into Lisp 20 years earlier than I did... (*sigh*)

-----

Applied Networking              http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc.          Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.         FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA  94043        PP-ASEL-IA



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?


Quote:

>+---------------
>| I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
>| Forth) for KIM-1...
>+---------------

>Uh... Having ported Doug Wrege's version of PDP-8 FOCAL/F to the PDP-10
>Spring 1971, I can say with some confidence that FOCAL isn't even *vaguely*
>Forth-like -- it's much closer to JOSS & MUMPS ...

All this LISP/Forth/MUMPS talk reminds me of STOIC, a
Forth-like TIL. It was developed by J. Sachs at MIT in
1977. I recall at Rochester in 1988 that Norman Smith
gave a paper, "STOIC on the DEC VAX", where he talked
about how Roger Hauck of the Smithsonian ported STOIC
to the Vax in 1980. Hmmm ...

The next thing, we'll be discussing PISTOL!

Paul Frenger
Associate Editor (Forth)
ACM Sigplan Notices



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>Like JOSS & MUMPS & BASIC & FORTRAN -- but unlike Forth -- FOCAL has
>traditional infix arithmetic with "the usual" operator priorities,
>that is, the assignment "SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468" is interpreted as
>"SET A=((B+(C*4.35))-(D/2.468))".

This must be totally off-topic, but...

I thought I had read that one of the peculiarities of MUMPS is that the
was NO operator precedence? That everything was just executed from left
to right? That, therefore,

        SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468

would be interpreted as

        SET A=(((B+C)*4.35)-D)/2.468

?
        Bart.



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:


> posted:

> >+---------------
> >| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
> >+---------------
> >Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
> >How many Forths are there?  Even a dozen?
> There were a half-dozen Forths for Atari 8 bit, and about a half-dozen
> for Atari ST.
> I count 28 distinct implementations at
> <http://www.forth.org/compilers.html>, and that list is decidedly not
> comprehensive.

     There are roughly a hundred versions of Forth that you can
get copies of. If you have a need for a special version of
Forth,
mention it on comp.lang.forth, and somebody will offer to send
you a copy of his unpublished version that he never got around
to
finishing. Counting versions is not the way to tell the health
of
a computer language. Count the number of textbooks on the
shelves
of bookstores intead. I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the big guys
like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes out at zero.

     When I meet people who tell me they want to learn all
about computing, including programming, I want to say learn
Forth. But I know that woun't work since they can't even go
to the bookstore and buy a book about it. Well at least they
can still get some nice books about Logo to get then started.

--



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:




> >+---------------
> >| I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
> >| Forth) for KIM-1...
> >+---------------

> >Uh... Having ported Doug Wrege's version of PDP-8 FOCAL/F to the PDP-10
> >Spring 1971, I can say with some confidence that FOCAL isn't even *vaguely*
> >Forth-like -- it's much closer to JOSS & MUMPS ...
> All this LISP/Forth/MUMPS talk reminds me of STOIC, a
> Forth-like TIL. It was developed by J. Sachs at MIT in
> 1977. I recall at Rochester in 1988 that Norman Smith
> gave a paper, "STOIC on the DEC VAX", where he talked
> about how Roger Hauck of the Smithsonian ported STOIC
> to the Vax in 1980. Hmmm ...

    Stoic is very clearly a version of Forth. It is unusual
in two respects. Unlike many creatively different versions
of Forth, they decided it was sufficently different to have
a new name. Also it was documented! It is no longer in use
due to a lack of interest. But if anybody wants to find out
more about it, digging thru the old archives will produce
results.

--



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>      There are roughly a hundred versions of Forth that you can
> get copies of. If you have a need for a special version of
> Forth,
> mention it on comp.lang.forth, and somebody will offer to send
> you a copy of his unpublished version that he never got around
> to
> finishing. Counting versions is not the way to tell the health

What would be cool would be an Open Sourced OpenFirmware.

--
((( DANGER )) LISP BIGOT (( DANGER )) LISP BIGOT (( DANGER )))

Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:


> +---------------
> | I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
> | Forth) for KIM-1...
> +---------------

> Uh... Having ported Doug Wrege's version of PDP-8 FOCAL/F to the PDP-10
> Spring 1971, I can say with some confidence that FOCAL isn't even *vaguely*
> Forth-like -- it's much closer to JOSS & MUMPS, and in fact, was developed
> by Richey Lary following his participation in the first installation of
> MUMPS at Mass Gen.  While (old, original) MUMPS had "string" as it's only
> data type (like Tcl), FOCAL had "floating point" as its only data type.
> (In fact, mutable "strings" were emulated with arrays of floating-point
> numbers, each array element representing one character.)

> Like JOSS & MUMPS & BASIC & FORTRAN -- but unlike Forth -- FOCAL has
> traditional infix arithmetic with "the usual" operator priorities,
> that is, the assignment "SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468" is interpreted as
> "SET A=((B+(C*4.35))-(D/2.468))".

> -Rob

> p.s. My FOCAL-10 port involved some serious rewriting of the internal
> FOCAL lexical subroutines SORTC & SORTJ to become two-instruction macros
> that made heavy use of the PDP-10 byte pointer stuff and "byte strips"
> to encode enumerated character equivalence classes. (Hey, it made it
> run 25 times faster!) It used some really hairy "MACRO-10" (the PDP-10
> assembler) macros to build those tables at compile time. Imagine my
> immense delight when I was exposed to Common Lisp and learned that:

> 1. The style of table-building I'd been writing in PDP-10 assembler
>    could be done *much* more naturally -- almost trivially, in fact --
>    with Lisp macros; and

> 2. That Common Lisp had preserved at least a little of the flavor of
>    the PDP-10 variable-sized byte operations... with the same names,
>    even: LDB, DPB, BYTE, BYTE-SIZE, BYTE-POSITION.  Way cool!

> I just wish I'd gotten into Lisp 20 years earlier than I did... (*sigh*)

> -----

> Applied Networking              http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
> Silicon Graphics, Inc.          Phone: 650-933-1673
> 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.         FAX: 650-933-0511
> Mountain View, CA  94043        PP-ASEL-IA

Rob,

I remember a Forth-like program I ran on the KIM, sitting at the
teletype in my kid's room working out algorithms to move an NC machine
in arbitrary circular arcs. I remember being annoyed because it seemed
that the major difference from Forth was the renaming of words just to
be different. My recollection that it was called Focal is evidently
faulty. Does anyone know what it might have been? (I had a video RAM on
that KIM, connected to a small TV monitor so I could plot the
trajectories. It was a better machine for my purpose than the mainframe
at work.)

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>I thought I had read that one of the peculiarities of MUMPS is that the
>was NO operator precedence? That everything was just executed from left
>to right? That, therefore,

>    SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468

>would be interpreted as

>    SET A=(((B+C)*4.35)-D)/2.468

>?

Somebody suggested (by e-mail) that I must have been thinking about
another language. Well, I looked it up. Here it is:

        M[UMPS] by example: operators
        http://www.jacquardsystems.com/Examples/operator.htm

I quote:

        M[UMPS] evaluates strictly from left to right, so that 1+1*2
        yields 4 and not 3.

        Bart.



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>... Counting versions is not the way to tell the health
>of
>a computer language. Count the number of textbooks on the
>shelves
>of bookstores intead. I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
>alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
>while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the big guys
>like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes out at zero.

>     When I meet people who tell me they want to learn all
>about computing, including programming, I want to say learn
>Forth. But I know that woun't work since they can't even go
>to the bookstore and buy a book about it. Well at least they
>can still get some nice books about Logo to get then started.

Is Amazon a bookstore?  Several Forth books there.

Cheers,
Elizabeth



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:

> I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
> alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
> while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the big guys
> like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes out at zero.

So, can you recommend any of those "zero" books? I've never used Forth
and I'm not sure I ever will. I'm much more attracted to languages from
the Lisp family -- nonetheless, my curiousity has slowly grown over the
years.

Michael

--
Michael Schuerig

http://www.schuerig.de/michael/



Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?
+---------------
| M[UMPS] by example: operators
| http://www.jacquardsystems.com/Examples/operator.htm
+---------------

Thanks for the pinter!

+---------------
| M[UMPS] evaluates strictly from left to right, so that 1+1*2
| yields 4 and not 3.
+---------------

Well, what can I say?!?  FOCAL *was* inspired directly by MUMPS, yet
it *did* have operator precedence, for arithmetic exprs at least --
I remember coding that part of FOCAL-10 as direct transliteration
of the FOCAL/F code. There was a separate small data stack for
intermediate results. (And a FOCAL-in-C snarfed off the net some
time ago agrees, too.)

Oh, well...

-Rob

-----

Applied Networking              http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc.          Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.         FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA  94043        PP-ASEL-IA



Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?
+---------------
| M[UMPS] by example: operators
| http://www.jacquardsystems.com/Examples/operator.htm
+---------------

Thanks for the pointer!

+---------------
| M[UMPS] evaluates strictly from left to right, so that 1+1*2
| yields 4 and not 3.
+---------------

Well, what can I say?!?  FOCAL *was* inspired directly by MUMPS, yet
it *did* have operator precedence, for arithmetic exprs at least --
I remember coding that part of FOCAL-10 as direct transliteration
of the FOCAL/F code. There was a separate small data stack for
intermediate results. (And a FOCAL-in-C snarfed off the net some
time ago agrees, too.)

Oh, well...

-Rob

-----

Applied Networking              http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc.          Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.         FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA  94043        PP-ASEL-IA



Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?

Quote:


> > I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
> > alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
> > while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the
> > big guys like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes
> > out at zero.
> So, can you recommend any of those "zero" books? I've never
> used Forth and I'm not sure I ever will. I'm much more
> attracted to languages from the Lisp family -- nonetheless,
> my curiousity has slowly grown over the years.

     There are many sources of knowledge about Forth for an
experienced computer user and net surfer. The problem I'm always
complaining about is the lack of Forth instructional material
for complete computer novices. I think this lack of interest in
providing new beginners material lowers the quality and quantity
of tutorial material for all levels of Forth.

     The best book I've ever seen on programming for any
language was written for Forth -- "Starting Forth" by Leo
Brodie. Unfortunately this is out of print and available only
thru special order; its not on the shelf of bookstores like it
was for over ten years. There is one new book on Forth for
experienced programmers available from Amazon.com (not
bookstores) and also Forth Inc (http://www.forth.com). Of the
very roughly 100 versions of Forth available for various
computers and operating systems, 10 or 20 have some
documentation that will show how to use Forth for someone who
already knows how to program. The other systems assume that you
have read a book like "Starting Forth" or have learned another
version of Forth and can reverse engineer uncommented Forth
source code. There are several tutorials and articles on the web
that are very good and the amount of material is slowly growing.
See the FAQ for comp.lang.forth for a list. Actually there are
too many web pages for Forth and it is hard to sort thru all of
them to find the ones that tell you exactly what you want to
know. If you don't find what you need, post a message to
comp.lang.forth stating your favorite operating system, cpu and
applications and someone point you to the right place.

--



Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 433 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Fixed point math in asm -HELP ME I 'am dying here

2. Is LISP dying?

3. Ackermans' function in LISP dies early

4. More anti-Lisp FUD dies, on Slashdot

5. Is LISP dying?

6. Is lisp dying, What about AutoLisp?

7. Is LISP dying?

8. Which Lisp am I running?

9. I am not deaf, but am I mute?

10. Lisp,LIsp,LISp,LISP...

11. Lisp,LIsp,LISp,LISP...

12. Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software