Comments on: IronLisp compliance http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/ A small, super fast, opensource and 100% C# IDE targetting .NET-based languages Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:06:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Andy Stopford http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-222 Andy Stopford Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:57:29 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-222 I wonder if ILisp should present it's self as a variant of Lisp based of say a Scheme syntax. Aiming for CL compliance (to the standard) would be a massive job and Lispers would prehaps expect nothing less than compliance. This would allow you experiment a little too (if you so wished). I wonder if ILisp should present it’s self as a variant of Lisp based of say a Scheme syntax. Aiming for CL compliance (to the standard) would be a massive job and Lispers would prehaps expect nothing less than compliance. This would allow you experiment a little too (if you so wished).

]]> By: Michael Foord http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-200 Michael Foord Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:41:03 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-200 As for libraries... the experience with IronPython was that making it comply ever more closely to 'normal Python' enabled more and more 'pure Python' libraries to 'just work'. (And existing libraries made very good testcases for IronPython.) For the libraries implemented in C, the IronPython team did re-implement some in C# and the community has created 'compatible wrappers' around similar .NET libraries for others. As for libraries… the experience with IronPython was that making it comply ever more closely to ‘normal Python’ enabled more and more ‘pure Python’ libraries to ‘just work’. (And existing libraries made very good testcases for IronPython.)

For the libraries implemented in C, the IronPython team did re-implement some in C# and the community has created ‘compatible wrappers’ around similar .NET libraries for others.

]]> By: Andrew Norris http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-188 Andrew Norris Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:20:14 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-188 > Scheme does have a nice, small spec; OTOH that spec doesn’t define a terribly capable language (the various Scheme implementations, of course, can be as capable as they want to be). Given the substantial libraries already at your disposal through .Net, even a minimal Scheme would have a lot of capabilities. > Scheme does have a nice, small spec; OTOH that spec doesn’t define a terribly capable language (the various Scheme implementations, of course, can be as capable as they want to be).

Given the substantial libraries already at your disposal through .Net, even a minimal Scheme would have a lot of capabilities.

]]> By: Top Posts « WordPress.com http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-187 Top Posts « WordPress.com Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:59:45 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-187 [...] IronLisp compliance I read some interesting feedback on reddit.com. Although I havent seriously looked into it, IronLisp would ideally […] [...] [...] IronLisp compliance I read some interesting feedback on reddit.com. Although I havent seriously looked into it, IronLisp would ideally […] [...]

]]> By: Bob Uhl http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-185 Bob Uhl Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:39:37 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-185 Scheme does have a nice, small spec; OTOH that spec doesn't define a terribly capable language (the various Scheme implementations, of course, can be as capable as they want to be). Moreover, it hasn't really learnt from the decades of experience of the Lisp community; the product of those decades of experience was a common Lisp platform--or Common Lisp. Not that Scheme's a bad language at all; it's neat, and cool, and definitely easier to implement than a Common Lisp. But I think that in the long run it's much nicer to have Common Lisp at one's fingertips than Scheme. The nice thing is that once you have a Scheme you can start work on building Common Lisp... Scheme does have a nice, small spec; OTOH that spec doesn’t define a terribly capable language (the various Scheme implementations, of course, can be as capable as they want to be). Moreover, it hasn’t really learnt from the decades of experience of the Lisp community; the product of those decades of experience was a common Lisp platform–or Common Lisp. Not that Scheme’s a bad language at all; it’s neat, and cool, and definitely easier to implement than a Common Lisp.

But I think that in the long run it’s much nicer to have Common Lisp at one’s fingertips than Scheme.

The nice thing is that once you have a Scheme you can start work on building Common Lisp…

]]> By: leppie http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-184 leppie Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:27:18 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-184 Thanks :) Thanks :)

]]> By: Alexey Goldin http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-182 Alexey Goldin Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:38:55 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-182 leppie, there is probably relevant discussion on comp.lang.lisp : http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/94433518dbc48d6d/ leppie, there is probably relevant discussion on comp.lang.lisp :

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/94433518dbc48d6d/

]]> By: what http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-180 what Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:48:53 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-180 Why not name it IronScheme then? Why not name it IronScheme then?

]]> By: leppie http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-179 leppie Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:27:03 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-179 That could be an idea :) Thanks! That could be an idea :) Thanks!

]]> By: Andrew Norris http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-178 Andrew Norris Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:19:50 +0000 http://xacc.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/ironlisp-compliance/#comment-178 Interesting -- thanks for the update. If you wanted to be Scheme-compatible, but not initially, it might make more sense to implement the core functionality (which would be similar) and then split off an IronScheme project once the shared components were relatively stable. Just a thought. Interesting — thanks for the update. If you wanted to be Scheme-compatible, but not initially, it might make more sense to implement the core functionality (which would be similar) and then split off an IronScheme project once the shared components were relatively stable.

Just a thought.

]]>