LispCraft

Hi, all. I finally completed Warcraft 2 implementation in LISP.
http://img859.imageshack.us/i/52320836.png/

Took me a few months, though, but mostly because I was too lazy and my DSL is still pretty buggy, has poor debugging support and long compilation times (takes about 30 seconds to reload source file). Anyway, this proves, that writing a game in Lisp is relatively easy, even for a single person.

>>40
It's implementation defined, and is usually implemented through a third party library. It's not a part of any C/C++ compiler available today.

>>41
It's in the standard, optional, but in the standard. Sepples is garbage collected.
Enjoy your toy garbage collected linear-bounded tarpit.

>>39
unit and regression testing coupled with sound idiomatic programming
Sounds time consuming and overly complicated, when in dymaic language you can have working program with little effort.

>>43
"working"

>>44
Use proper quotes, ⁶⁶faggot⁹⁹.

Jesus Christ, another static language retard.

>>43
dymaic language
Nope. Nope. And more nope. Dynamic languages actually require a lot more unit and regression testing than static languages, to overcome type and identifier name resolution being resolved at runtime, whereas with static languages those types of bugs are caught at compile time and don't need runtime tests.

If you're using dynamic languages, you absolutely at least better have a regression test suite for any non-hobbyist project. Sure, dynamic languages are great for putting together one-off scripts and fire and forget code, but when it comes to maintaining and evolving a code base, dynamic languages can be painful without a proper test suite in place.

This is a well known problem of dynamic languages in the industry, and it seems only that amateurs and hobbyists aren't aware of this inherent problem.

In fact, pretty much any seasoned dynamic typing programmer will consider your code written in a dynamic language to be broken unless it has some automated unit tests.

https://docs.google.com/View?id=dcsvntt2_25wpjvbbhk

http://www.gamedev.net/blog/883/entry-2249305-scripting-languages-are-overrated/

http://codemonkeyism.com/the-unit-testing-lie-aka-dynamic-language-lie/

>>47
identifier name resolution being resolved at runtime
What the fuck.
(define (hax anus)
  (my anus))
# compile: unbound identifier in module in: my

>>47
In practice, you need to run program once and check its features and you don't have to care about udefined/untyped cases.

>>49
So, my LISP programs work, even if half of identifiers aren't binded yet.

>>48
That works in scheme or CL, but in FIOC, FFOC, Ruby and other hipster languages that us duck typing, until a function/method is actually ran, it's body is not fully evaluated.

>>51
Guess why they suck and are called toy languages.

>>48
This means, that you can't use global variables, without declaring them statically. Scheme is a statically typed language.

>>52
Yep. Static binding is inconvinient in REPL, where you spend most time during Lisping, so strong-typing and early binding makes Lisp not acceptable Lisp. Would be nice to have Lisp with weak typing, like BASH, where everything is a string.

>>54
Also, there are no undefined variables in BASH, they just hold empty strings.

>>53-55
Retardation is not /prog/-related. You may want to go back to /b/, now.

>>56
And everybody else went and chased static. And they've been doing it like crazy. And they've, in my opinion, reached the theoretical bounds of what they can deliver, and it has FAILED. These static type systems, they're WRONG. Wrong in the sense that when you try to do something, and they say: No, category theory doesn't allow that, because it's not elegant... Hey man: who's wrong? The person who's trying to write the program, or the type system?

Monad is just one of typeclasses. And a typeclass is some abstract entity, that allows concrete types to use some functions. And the nature of these functions depends on a typeclass of a concrete type, and how these functions implemented for a concrete type depends on the embodiment of the typeclass of that type. For example, monad Maybe is a type, computations, embedded into a monad of which, return either result, embedded into one of its data constructors, or a second data constructor - Nothing.

>>57
One retarded at time, please. Now it's the static-typed C/C++ fanboy faggot moment. Come back later.

More precisely, polytypic functions capture families of polymorphic functions in one single template de nition. Instances of a polytypic function for speci c algebraic types
can be generated automatically by a compiler following the denitional structure of the types. However, the de nitional structure of an abstract type is, for maintainability
reasons, logically hidden and, sometimes, even physically unavailable

>>36-60
Please stick to the topic. If you feel you have an interesting topic to discuss please utilize existing threads which are about the topic or create a new one if they do not exist.

>>61
Thread successfully derailed. Suck my cock, ,,faggot''.

Clay language owns your "polytypic C++" shit

sage

Is there actually an implementation of this DSL?

>>66
http://pastebin.com/W4Ldv7zu

>>67
Is that a no?

>>68
It's run by spirits of the computer.

ran by Ghost Farts

>>66
Seriously, are you going to post it soon? Because I would like to see it.

I love you, Nikita-kun.

>>7
Wow! I myself already forgot I once had |> :: && and ||, but their usage proven to be messy and completely unreadable.

I now have
   <Condition0 = Do0
   |Condition1 = Do1
   ...
   |ConditionN = DoN
   >


And `|` there acts as OR, while & is AND.

>>73
That's really cute, Nikita-kun.

>>74
Not exactly. I now have to write "X lt Y" instead of "X < Y". At least `lt` is a message, so it can be overloaded, by something like: invertedInteger X = (lt Y = X gt Y)

>>75
Oh, now that's a downside. Can't you replace the < with { or ( or something?

>>75
Your language has no contexts?

>>76
(), [] and {} already reserved for more frequent stuff, while comparison operators are four times less used than if/else block, despite my use of pattern-matching where possible. I.e. less-than operator is less important than the `map` function, which is the most used function, deserving a single letter name `m`, if not it's own operator. Bitwise functions are not getting their operators at all, so no << or >> cryptic crap: Just (A xor B shl C)

>>77
What contexts? My language has no undeclared global variables, because they are confusing: i.e. toplevel acts as a big let, and all files you want as part of package must be explicitly included with compiler directive. So a main file of C/C++ compiler package could look like:

$(say 'compiling C/C++ compiler...') //would be executed at compile time
say 'loading C/C++ compiler...' //would be executed on package load
@include lexer parser expander optimizer generator assembler

$(say 'done compiling')
say 'done loading'

Vintage Nikita, I love who bumped this thread.