An opinionated view of the Tidyverse “dialect” of the R language

Re:An opinionated view of the Tidyverse “dialect” of the R l... by lispm on Friday July 05, 2019 @05:47PM (#20366147)

> This is particularly true of Scheme which foregoes much of the dynamic quality of Common Lisp

The idea of even the standard Common Lisp is that both is possible: a static Common Lisp and a dynamic Common Lisp, even within the same application in different sections of the program. Common Lisp allows hints to the compiler to remove various features (like fully generic code being reduced to type specific code), it allows a compiler to do various optimizations (inlining, getting rid of late-binding, ...) - while at the same time other parts of the code might be interpreted on the s-expression level.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An opinionated view of the Tidyverse “dialect” of the R l... by vincent-toups on Saturday July 06, 2019 @07:36AM (#20369141)

Its definitely the idea. I know it works well enough for a lot of people, but for me, I'm happy to just give up on the dynamic behavior in favor of a simpler universe.

The last thing I want to be thinking about is whether my compiler needs a "hint" that something can be stack allocated, for instance. That is their business, not mine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An opinionated view of the Tidyverse “dialect” of the R l... by lispm on Saturday July 06, 2019 @02:40PM (#20371113)

Common Lisp as a language standard makes no commitment to the smartness of a compiler. If a certain compiler can figure out things, great, but some compilers might be dumb by design (for example to be fast for interactive use). That's left to implementations.

[ Parent | on HN ]