Author Topic: LSharp v2  (Read 10025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bryco

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 1850
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2008, 11:09:43 PM »
Garbage collection was designed into lisp, I wonder if the new version will be faster at all?

tjr

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2008, 02:00:44 AM »
Feel free to post negative comments, but positive ones are more constructive.  :-P
There is nothing lost with exploration. Scratch that itch and don't worry about those who don't understand.

Heck, Jim Hugunin set out to prove the CLR was terrible for dynamic languages and look what his work spawned (IronPython, IronRuby, IronLisp, etc.).

sinc

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2008, 08:17:59 AM »
Scratch that itch and don't worry about those who don't understand.

Who doesn't understand?  I think we all pretty much understand what this is.

jmaeding

  • Bull Frog
  • Posts: 304
  • I'm just here for the Shelties.
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2008, 06:09:40 PM »
The pattern I see, is every major program needs both a command line language, and an object oriented API.
You can test things so easily at the command line, so development is pretty easy.
The OO stuff is easier for larger programs with lots of settings and things being passed around.

Its the ability to run stuff on the command line that is so slick in lisp.  I can test (car nil) to see if the Car function freaks out on a nil.
No way to do that in .net, you must set up a test program, then step through it.
One nice thing I figured out a few months ago, is the quickwatch window in VS.
You can type in any simple statement to see it evaluate, like someVar.GetType().ToString().
You can type in anything to see if it gives a value, helpful when investigating if you are doing what you think you are.
James Maeding

tjr

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2008, 08:44:04 PM »
Scratch that itch and don't worry about those who don't understand.

Who doesn't understand?  I think we all pretty much understand what this is.
To clarify I was speaking of those who don't understand the need to scratch that itch of fooling around with something that may seem useless, yet fun, but turn into something great. I wasn't implying that people here didn't understand what his code does.

uncoolperson

  • King Gator
  • Posts: 4430
  • Doing everything in metric inches!
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2008, 09:25:31 PM »
I meant to give L# a good look when i first saw it... sadly got sidetracked with a ball of tinfoil
Aside from any negatives, the fun factor could definitely be there.

hey look tinf.....
when all else fails On Error Resume Next
-----------------------
Livin like I'm on borrowed time
-----------------------
Searching for the Ballmer Peak

Spike Wilbury

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2008, 06:03:20 PM »
It probably takes me at least twice as long to perform a task in C++, compared to C#.  The syntax of C++ is rather messy, which makes it easier to create errors that are difficult to find.  Not only is it faster/easier to write C#, I spend less time in the debugger.  And it's always possible to write some code in C++ and throw a managed wrapper around it, should you find something that can't be done (or doesn't perform well enough) in C#.

And of course, Boo makes C# look twisted...  The languages keep a'changin, and they usually get better.

But I'm sure there will still be lots of interest in that L# Lisp.NET thing...  Lisp's longevity is really rather impressive.  Isn't Lisp generally considered to be, like, the third computer language ever invented, or something like that?

For the few software companies I have done code so far, C++/MFC/ARX/ATL (I feel very comfortable and like it a lot) is what they want.

I still like lisp, but do not have time anymore to continue playing... I guess I did most of what I could.... I also like C# and it is easier if you come from the above languages or at least for me it was, but again little time too and mostly what I have done it is for my personal use :)

Lisp will continue... no doubt about it.

sinc

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2008, 11:56:42 PM »
For the few software companies I have done code so far, C++/MFC/ARX/ATL (I feel very comfortable and like it a lot) is what they want.

They are building on lots of existing code, then?  It seems self-destructive to start a new project using MFC at this point.

It's Alive!

  • BricsCAD
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 6964
  • AKA Daniel
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2008, 09:04:01 AM »
For the few software companies I have done code so far, C++/MFC/ARX/ATL (I feel very comfortable and like it a lot) is what they want.

They are building on lots of existing code, then?  It seems self-destructive to start a new project using MFC at this point.

Why is that? Microsoft released a bunch of new MFC goodies for VS9 && C++ is getting lots of TLC, with C++0x -> lambda expressions, regex , smart pointers etc. great stuff.

Spike Wilbury

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2008, 09:38:54 AM »
For the few software companies I have done code so far, C++/MFC/ARX/ATL (I feel very comfortable and like it a lot) is what they want.

They are building on lots of existing code, then?  It seems self-destructive to start a new project using MFC at this point.

Why is that? Microsoft released a bunch of new MFC goodies for VS9 && C++ is getting lots of TLC, with C++0x -> lambda expressions, regex , smart pointers etc. great stuff.


I just do it.... :)

Below it is a quote of an email, when I asked for information, a few days ago....

Quote
We would really need to see a resume to make a good guess.   
Which computer languages is he familiar with?  C, C++, Java? 
Which OS does he work in Windows, UNIX, Linux, or RHEL?

Has he ever had a security clearance in the last 5 years? 
If not, itís OK given he has a clean report. 
Many jobs donít need clearance, but it does pay better when you get one.

Spike Wilbury

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2008, 09:42:11 AM »
For the few software companies I have done code so far, C++/MFC/ARX/ATL (I feel very comfortable and like it a lot) is what they want.

They are building on lots of existing code, then?  It seems self-destructive to start a new project using MFC at this point.

Yes.

The projects I have done, must follow an structure, and I have somehow started from scratch :)

The other part, well, that's what they want.

sinc

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2008, 09:47:52 AM »

Why is that? Microsoft released a bunch of new MFC goodies for VS9 && C++ is getting lots of TLC, with C++0x -> lambda expressions, regex , smart pointers etc. great stuff.


Just that Microsoft really seems to be going .NET these days, and the CLI stuff is SO much cleaner than MFC.

Spike Wilbury

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2008, 09:53:41 AM »

Why is that? Microsoft released a bunch of new MFC goodies for VS9 && C++ is getting lots of TLC, with C++0x -> lambda expressions, regex , smart pointers etc. great stuff.


Just that Microsoft really seems to be going .NET these days, and the CLI stuff is SO much cleaner than MFC.

Sinc,

If it was for me, I will use it.... when I get a chance (on any of the future projects) I will try to see if they want that... (one of the comments the lead programmer(s) mention is protection of the source code and that they have their own structure)

:)

sinc

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2008, 10:11:47 AM »
For people with lots of legacy MFC code, it's hard to switch.  They typically have all these libraries all built, debugged, and working, with lots of other code using those libraries, and changing that can be pretty difficult.

I think that's why MS is continuing to release tools for MFC, not because they really want people to use it, just that they recognize that too many of their big customers still have too much MFC stuff, and that isn't going to change for quite some time.

Spike Wilbury

  • Guest
Re: LSharp v2
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2008, 10:22:14 AM »
For people with lots of legacy MFC code, it's hard to switch.  They typically have all these libraries all built, debugged, and working, with lots of other code using those libraries, and changing that can be pretty difficult.

I think that's why MS is continuing to release tools for MFC, not because they really want people to use it, just that they recognize that too many of their big customers still have too much MFC stuff, and that isn't going to change for quite some time.

Sinc,

What do you use for your protection of your software, the obfuscation? or ?

Thanks.