http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=483100&postcount=19 It has absolutely nothing to do with being (un)stable. Have you already forgotten how it took them longer to get Flash on 64-bit platform than what it's taken Blizzard to develop D3? It wasn't the first and sure won't be the last "minor issue", and if something as trivial as that isn't supported at all, the sharpest among us could draw some conclusions. I'll check back in a couple of years, but everyone buying a 64-bit system for home use is just wasting money based on insufficient brain activity. I'm not even gonna bother with the "runs stuff" argument. In case you weren't aware, operation systems also have other problems than just freeze-crashes where you lose all control.
And just look at any online games: everyone suffers from each other's child porn induced packet loss lag and other Windozery. It's not like the crappy B.net servers weren't enough for desyncdins. You might also want to consider that W7 is going to suck donkey nads for the first year or so until they release a traditional service pack. New Winblows releases will always be full of serious bugs even though you possibly couldn't stoop any lower than where Visva (=pus in English for the obvious pun) has been. And that 64-bit jibba jabba is also nothing but clueless gamer kids' delusions. Haha, "Winblows", I never thought of that one! +2 insightful
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 1:44
False. Porting well-written code to x86-64 or any other architecture is just a rebuild (not counting drivers and that sort of thing).
That thread, like any other technical thread in a non-technical forum, is filled with idiots giving their opinion on subjects they know nothing about. Particularly that guy OP quoted, who in the early 90s could have been heard saying "640K should be enough for anyone".
>>3
I agree with you on their idiocy, but I wouldn't say porting to 64bit is as easy as you say. If you write code in a mostly high level language, then it's fine, but if your code contains C or x86 asm, then parts may need rewriting for improved speed or compatibility.
This camelturd kid must be like 16. He says "windoze" like every 3 words like he's the king of the fucking technical world for discovering Lunix.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 3:14
I knew a kid that I thought was a badass Lunix motherfucker. But then I got Lunix myself, and it turned out that whenever someone was bassing by his computer, he would just cycle between ls, mount, top.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 3:43
operation systems
i lol'd
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 3:47
oh, wow.
i went to that link and decided to read the whole thread.
just, wow.
i thought the people arguing on /g/ were idiots, but this takes it to a whole new level.
i think my brain just died
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 3:55
I get all my computing advice from the Diablofans forum
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 4:38
I'll enjoy my extra large and extra many registers, thank you very much.
>>12
This is /prog/, where some people program. People have freedom to write 64bit applications if they want to.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 9:02
>>4
Using inline Assembly will make the program hard to port to any architecture, not just x86-64. That's a risk you take when you choose to use Assembly. As for parts in pure C, if you did something stupid like depending on long being 32 bits long, or assuming little endianness, then the code is not well-written.
If your code is filled with shit like that and you didn't comment the unportable parts, then yes, porting to other platforms may take as long as a full rewrite.
The whole point of C is that it's portable.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 9:23
>>12
The only application I use that isn't 64-bit is Wine (and whatever I run through it).
The thread that OP links to makes me think /prog/ isn't so bad after all. I mean holy shit, the misinformation those kids spew is baffling. At least people on /prog/ have a sense of humor.
>>25
Glancing at newlisp after learning more proper lisps make me wonder what the authors had in mind: FEXPRs, damn things are deprecated/considered harmful and can be implemented in only a few(~4-6) lines of code using real macros, which it the language lacks.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 17:16
>>23
so these shit languages really have no chance. ;_;
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 17:36
Could anyone remind me why, if Lisp is so perfect, operating systems are normally not written in it? Furthermore, shouldn't a so-called perfect language have taken over all aspects of programming?
>>28
LispMachines and there's a few other experimental low-level lisps existed in the past, some were really cool things. Just get a copy yourself and experiment.
Lisp isn't exactly a popular language these days, there just aren't enough coders to go around to write a full-fledged OS in it, but there are some nice looking attempts. It's also not the perfect language for micro-optimizing, but it's something it can do if you need it to.
However, lisp is perfect for a lot of modern applications, and there shouldn't be anything stopping you if you want to develop in it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 17:48
>>30
That doesn't answer the question. The question was why isn't it used, not whether it can be used. Of course it can be used. Anything can be used. But if it's so great, why isn't it used.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 17:55
>>30
It was used in the past to write Genera, there's just not enough Lisp coders nowadays to write a full-fledged OS.
People who know it, use it.
I don't know why Lisp isn't a popular language these days, maybe the entry barrier is too high? Or maybe people hate it because of the parens? I can't find an answer, but I haven't seen people who actually learned the language in full to hate lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 18:14
So, how good is Lisp for general-purpose scripting? E.g. FIOC (Python)
>>32
Pretty good, but if you want to do OS specific things, you'll need to get various libs and maybe even get some FFI bindings generated for you by a groveler.
>>34
Most people start by learning the language by reading "ANSI Common Lisp" or "Practical Common Lisp" or "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming". Either of those books are good starting books, or you could start with SICP and read them later. Since you said you wanted to do practical things, PCL(Practical Common Lisp) might be more to your taste.
>>36
If you wish. The Operating System doesn't really matter, be it Linux, Mac or Windows, they're all mostly decently supported. Linux is probably the best supported platform for some implementations, but I wouldn't say you would have trouble using any of those platforms to learn and use CL on.
You'll want Emacs + SLIME + Paredit for editing and a good Lisp implementation like SBCL, ClozureCL, CLISP (for free ones), or AllegroCL and LispWorks(for commercial ones).
If you chose to go the path of SICP and Scheme, try DrScheme/PLT.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 18:49
>>38
Fuck, I'm irritated. So there are different lisp aspects - different compilers for those aspects and uhm... wat?
With what Lisp exactly should I start if I want to be in the mainstream-lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 18:58
>>39
Common Lisp is the most popular mainstream dialect. >>35-chan recommended something called Practical Common Lisp, which I know little about but I think it would be wise to look into.
There's many Lisps, but the one I'm talking about is Common Lisp, which is probably the most featureful, well supported and standardized Lisp out there.
Scheme is another Lisp which is used mostly in teaching and SICP, however it's very much a real language too, even though somewhat minimalistic.
The implementations I've listed are all implementations of the same standard, so your code will work the same in any of them, as long as there aren't bugs, but spec violating bugs are usually treated seriously by most CL implementors. Just use whatever you wish, I'd recommend going with SBCL, but you won't go wrong with the other ones. Most CL libraries will work in most of these implementations correctly, so there's no worry there. Things which these different implementations do differently are threading, networking, FFI, however, as long as your Lisp supports them, you can use a common portability layer/library and ignore the lisp sitting behind you, as the portability layer will take care of chosing the right functions for you. Anyway, these are minor details one can easily glance over once he knows the language.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 19:44
>>28
Because Lisp vendors priced themselves out of the market selling expensive, language-specific hardware, and when the AI Winter set in, Lisp got chilled by proximity. Basically, Lisp never had its Unix. C was able to ride its way to success on Unix's coattails, but big Lisp vendors were still trying to hawk Lisp machines.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-04 21:21
>>41
Minimalist languages are really nice if they're designed well. FOR EXAMPLE, J