Re:Examining the Legendary Hurd Kernel (2008)
by lispm on Wednesday July 15, 2015 @04:36PM
(#9893910)
> Compiling a functional program to efficient C isn't the same as writing inherently efficient C in a functional language. An amateur like me threw together one in a short time while the other took many PhD's worth of effort to get in good shape. Most of them still don't outperform my old system because they try to solve a harder problem.
Lisp is not necessarily 'functional'. It's also quite imperative.
There have been in the past Lisp compilers which generated 'readable' and 'maintainable' C from Lisp code. The compilers I mentioned didn't really have that goal.
> My tech was a C/C++ implementation on LISP. A subset, more honestly, as I never needed the whole thing. I macro'd useful patterns to make it more like a BASIC-style 4GL.
I remember reading about users writing C in Lisp, with added use of macros to make code generation easier.
> The result was a productivity boost over developing in C or C++ with interactive development, better debugging, less coding, automated checks at the flip of a switch, & automated generation of all the source & makefiles.
Sounds good.
> Is such a thing worth rebuilding until functional compilers are good enough to wholesale replace C/C++ in their niche areas?
Hard to say. I doubt that C/C++ users will use Lisp-based tools - unless its really really good and useful.
> In one paragraph, you say it's pointless and nobody is interesting. Then you give me a link to an implementation in another. Puzzling you are. Thanks for the link, though. :)
'Nobody' is maybe the wrong word. 'Almost nobody' is probably better. The Python in CL implementation exists for some years, but I haven't heard of larger adoption or much further development. It was developed at a time when Python integration seemed to be more important. But it's definitely a nice try and may have some interesting bits in it...
Lisp is not necessarily 'functional'. It's also quite imperative.
There have been in the past Lisp compilers which generated 'readable' and 'maintainable' C from Lisp code. The compilers I mentioned didn't really have that goal.
> My tech was a C/C++ implementation on LISP. A subset, more honestly, as I never needed the whole thing. I macro'd useful patterns to make it more like a BASIC-style 4GL.
I remember reading about users writing C in Lisp, with added use of macros to make code generation easier.
> The result was a productivity boost over developing in C or C++ with interactive development, better debugging, less coding, automated checks at the flip of a switch, & automated generation of all the source & makefiles.
Sounds good.
> Is such a thing worth rebuilding until functional compilers are good enough to wholesale replace C/C++ in their niche areas?
Hard to say. I doubt that C/C++ users will use Lisp-based tools - unless its really really good and useful.
> In one paragraph, you say it's pointless and nobody is interesting. Then you give me a link to an implementation in another. Puzzling you are. Thanks for the link, though. :)
'Nobody' is maybe the wrong word. 'Almost nobody' is probably better. The Python in CL implementation exists for some years, but I haven't heard of larger adoption or much further development. It was developed at a time when Python integration seemed to be more important. But it's definitely a nice try and may have some interesting bits in it...