ARM vs x86

What software absolutely needs the x86 performance from the user and programmer  perspective? Why can't we switch to ARM even if it was ~4 times slower but much cheaper?

>>40
IMO the only valid reasons to reject Common Lisp would be its size and garbage collection.
Alright, fuck off and die.

>>41
Why are you attacking me? I just said Common Lisp was a great language and tried to find not-obviously-wrong arguments against it!

>>42
Garbage collection is not obviously wrong.

>>40
No doubt about that, and I don't want to start a CL macro flame war. CL's size problem is probably about the amount of unneeded abstractions in the standard (i.e., how many times do you happen to use a prog? Why both dolist and map?), but that's again to maintain backwards compatibility. Another problem is the naming convention, and sometimes argument order, but, again, backwards compatibility reasons.

In CL's defense, committees are usually much worse at designing things than people doing it alone, especially when backwards compatibility comes into play, and in CL's designed to be as backwards compatible as possible.

>>43
I never said it was wrong. My opinion is that the use of GC constitutes a valid point of debate.

>>34
That's just your problem. Took me less than a week to find reading Lisp to be quite natural. Prefix is no more unnatural to me than infix (it's even better for some things). Being unable to get used to some notation or semantic concept is a problem with one's mind most of the time.

>>45
CL requires no GC, an implementation may just consume all the available memory without ever releasing it and still be standard-compliant.
What would you use, instead of a GC?

Lisp is unreadable. I can't see any structure in the parens sea, and the functions/variables have no syntactic difference.
Its like inverse of COBOL verbosity with polish notation.

"A big obstacle within the Lisp community is the fact that we seem to have too many right-thing thinkers, whereas it would be more healthy to stress the diversity that Lisp allows us to have."

>>49
It's not ok to do it wrong.

>>50
There's always more than one right way to accomplish a task.
Lisp is always the wrong way however, with it's unreadable, cryptic parenthesis soup.

The Geneva Convention ought to have provisions against such an inhumane, ulitmately unscientific and harmful language even.

>>32
Fair answer

Why can't we switch to ARM even if it was ~4 times slower but much cheaper?
You can.  Why don't you know this?

>>51
You're the anti-GC spammer, so fuck off.

>>48
Exactly.

>>46
Fuck off.

Lisp
GC is shit.

>>55
If it isn't Lisp, it's crap.

If it isn't crap, it's Lisp.

>>2
Woah.
Oh my gosh.
You're the smartest person in the world.
You're amazing.

You're so SPECIAL. Clearly different than everyone else on the planet. Better, mentally faster than all the rest. Not an average or mundane sheep, but a SPECIAL human. More evolved. A master race consisting of one member.

Can I suck your dick? Maybe ingesting your semen will raise my IQ by 20 points.

>>58
Ashkenazi Jews are smart. Shockingly brilliant, in general. Impressively greater in brain power than the bulk of the human population. People who can’t comprehend the easily understood data verifying high Ashkenazi IQ may not simply be anti-semitic; they must also be crippled in the math/logic zone of their inferior parietal cortex, with subsequent IQ in the ~85 range.

>>58
Jews are smart, fuck off with your ironic posts back to Reddit.

>>59
Oh fuck off with your pseudo-science stormfag

>>61
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates

>>62
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.de/2012/12/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html

>>63
enjoy your ~85 IQ