LISP .NET
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 4:53
Would you program it?
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 5:00
No, I wouldn't trust microsoft's implementation to be specification-complient, and also for performance reasons.
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 5:04
L#
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 6:48
(hahaha '(oh wow))
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 11:32
lol no. although F# does look kind of interesting.
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 12:28
>>2
Lisp can't do anything on its own anyways, so you don't have to worry about its performance being bogged down.
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 14:56
(wait-for-multiple-objects)?
Name:
Anonymous
2007-12-07 20:30
LOL!
Name:
Anonymous
2009-02-25 7:33
The optimum address locations on the drum had to execute code from remote sources securely 5.
Name:
Anonymous
2009-03-06 13:57
The language the book What do I Strike one you can then jump into OO without.
Name:
Anonymous
2009-08-16 23:45
Lain.
Name:
Anonymous
2012-04-07 21:09
So, after having 3 years to discuss this, what does /prog/ think now? Is LISP.NET a good idea?
Name:
Anonymous
2012-04-07 21:33
Lisp is based around the idea of a cons cell, containing a car and a cdr. .net is incompatible with the Lisp ideology.
Name:
Anonymous
2012-04-07 21:38
clojure has already been ported to .NET
Name:
Anonymous
2012-04-08 14:03
>>13
2012-2007=5, not 3, you mental hobbit.
Name:
Anonymous
2012-04-08 15:39
>>16
But the last post was in 2009. Go wipe another urinal, you mental dwarf.
Name:
Anonymous
2012-04-08 17:03
>>16
'
>2012
>still measuring mentality as height and using it as a defamatory base
THAT WAS SICP QUALITY!
Name:
Anonymous
2013-08-12 23:02
yes
Name:
Anonymous
2013-08-12 23:08
yes
Name:
Anonymous
2013-08-13 16:06
yes
yes
Name:
Anonymous
2013-08-13 16:45
yes
yes
Name:
Anonymous
2013-08-14 16:26
Haskell.NET: would you feed your dog with it?