To you lisp lovers

What has lisp ever done for reducing the memory footprint of a computer program? The answer is nothing, nothing at all. This is all the work of C.

>>1
I input a specification using a lisp DSL and it solves the shortest binary sequence that forms a conforming program.

C & vi - yay
Lisp & Emacs - nay

memory hasn't been an issue since the 2005.

>>4
A shit excuse (all excuses are shit) used by faggots to excuse their shit software.

>b-but hardware advances! software doesn't have to have quality programming anymore!

typical fuckin atheist retards with no values

>>1
It's an implementation detail. Here is a poor example that should get the point across. SBCL 1.1.4 on AMD64 was used.
CL-USER> (declaim (optimize (compilation-speed 0) (debug 0) (safety 0) (space 3) (speed 2)))
; No value
CL-USER> (defun int++ (x)
       (declare (type fixnum x))
       (the fixnum (+ 1 x)))
INT++
CL-USER> (compile 'int++)
INT++
NIL
NIL
CL-USER> (disassemble #'int++)
; disassembly for INT++
; 0421194F:       4883C202         ADD RDX, 2                 ; no-arg-parsing entry point
;       53:       488BE5           MOV RSP, RBP
;       56:       F8               CLC
;       57:       5D               POP RBP
;       58:       C3               RET
NIL
As you can see, the code is pretty compact. Not to mention inlining can be used at the cost of full dynamicity. The real reason that C code is smaller is that C code does less.
I have to admit though, some of the extra you get with high-level languages can't be removed. For instance, as you can see, the value's lowest bit is used for type tagging purposes.

>>3
vi and derivatives thereof are garbage. Use Emacs, even for C, for it puts most other text editors to shame.

>>4
Very delusional. Even if that were true, memory bandwidth is more of a bottleneck than ever.

This Cudder isn't the "US english and UK english VN" guy, its probably the "GC is shit" guy, or Gerald J Suss himself.

>>7
VN standing for?

>>6
don't want to fuck up my thumbs

>>8
Bijuaru Noveru.

*Bijuaru Noberu

It's an implementation detail.
It's an "implementation detail" that means the difference between "small and fast" and "does it really take this much code to do $trivial_task?", or if you scale up, between "it works" and "we need to buy more hardware", so it bloody well matters.

Your example is useless as no one would ever write code like that in practice anyway. It's usually (needlessly) full of things like higher-order functions, which have much higher overheads. This reminds me of an old quote about Asm vs C, in response to the "you can write inefficient code in any language" argument: "Because of the amount of effort you need to expend to write any code in Asm, you will naturally be encouraged to use as few instructions as possible, resulting in much higher code density." Compare this to C++ where e.g. writing std::map<std::string,std::string> v; and calling several methods on it is enough to instantly generate a KB or more of code, or to take this to an extreme, eval in even higher level languages (like Lisp) is sufficient to add to your executable a substantial portion of the bloody compiler itself!

"With great power comes great responsibility." And I'm not sure if the majority of HLL programmers out there should have that responsibility.

No, OP is not me. Obviously.

I love Cudder.

I love C, I love LISP, and I love Jews.

>>12
Your example is useless as no one would ever write code like that in practice anyway.
A C programmer would, and should if ey want to compare C and Lisp in an honest way.

"With great power comes great responsibility." And I'm not sure if the majority of HLL programmers out there should have that responsibility.
I doubt the programmers who cannot sparingly use powerful abstractions would be good low-level programmers.

eval in even higher level languages (like Lisp) is sufficient to add to your executable a substantial portion of the bloody compiler itself!
There is no such thing as an “executable” in the Lisp dream world, not in the usual sense at least.

>>12
$trivial_task
I hope ya not using PHP these days, Cudds, I expect no less than assembly web services from you.

It's usually (needlessly) full of things like higher-order functions, which have much higher overheads.
But higher order functions and objects, which are simply glorified structs, are identical. A lot of C code pass around structs. It just looks different syntax-wise.

eval in even higher level languages (like Lisp) is sufficient to add to your executable a substantial portion of the bloody compiler itself!
Thats the idea, its also a niche, though.

>>12
Cudder please don't equate C to sepples

[b][u][i]
LET ME TELL YOU WHERE YOU CAN STUFF YOUR FUCKING LIBC BITCH
NOWHERE IN MY MEMORY MODEL, THAT'S FOR SURE
CAUSE THAT SHIT IS DEAD WOOD FOR C DIPSHIT
AIN'T GOT ROOM FOR THAT SHIT
GT*F*O
[/b][/u][/i]

★☆☆☆☆

A C programmer would
No.
int addone(int x)
{
 return x + 1;
}
That's TDWTF material.

There is no such thing as an “executable” in the Lisp dream world, not in the usual sense at least.
And this is exactly what's wrong with Lisp and the entire cult surrounding the language: You mentally masturbate over theory, with little applications to practice, and is as useful to real programmers as a discussion of spherical cows is to a farmer.

I hope ya not using PHP these days
At least the majority of web hosts out there support PHP. Which is what it's good for, generating webpages. (And little else.)

But higher order functions and objects, which are simply glorified structs, are identical. A lot of C code pass around structs. It just looks different syntax-wise.
It's far more likely that the C code actually has a real need to use a struct, as opposed to the higher order function which may just be for shits and giggles. As I said above, it's not as easy to add a struct compared to a lambda in Lisp; and that at least causes programmers to pause and ask themselves "do I really need to be doing it like this". With Lisp, it's as easy as (lambda ...), and suddenly you've "written" a lot more code than you thought.

>>16
C++ is just a step above C in terms of making it easy to generate lots of code, whether you really need it or not.

>>19
majority of web hosts out there support PHP. Which is what it's good for, generating webpages. (And little else.)
(Ç_Ç), its sad seeing everything go to hell. When had perl to make the quick work, then reimplemented to low level C. It is sad those days are gone. orgmode.org has it at the least correct

I just want to say that C# has all the interesting features of lisp and (if you're not lazy) equals c in performance (on windows at least).  Only the memory footprint is worse.  It's also much faster to work with, a quality Lord Paul Graham espouses.

Just try it with an open mind.

LOL @ ``Cudder'' by talking of higher order functions as if they were something fancy which must be used with responsibility and a frown on one's face. Map is the most natural thing to use in the world, but enjoy your for (_;_;_) {} loops forever.

>>21
No macros, not ``all the interesting features of lisp''. If having anonymous functions and curly return semicolons is all you need, then good for you.

>>21
I do not doubt it. But µ$ makes no contribution outside for other systems, not even to the Mono Project. Then again, Perl and POSIX is nearly everywhere, I can port my wml code on any machine, and replicate it elsewhere, being architecture and environment ignorant.

>>24
[lol_cats] [...] µ$ [...] Perl and POSIX

Back to Slashdot, please.

>>23

$ cd /.

$ pwd
/
$

sed 's/>>23/>>25/'

To be on topic, Lisp expressed that Turing Complete and abstract programs exist, and can be evaluated while executing: REPL. Something all other abstract languages depend on.

Now imagine a program that is responsible and self healing in a system for the amount of resources it uses. What produced out of LISP was just that, a Garbage Collector, protecting system failures/errors while ensuring execution.

>>28
Erlang is better at that. Nobody uses lishp except for some web-monkeys who use Clojure.

>>29
Certainly, with a heavy customized syntax:
http://www.erlang.org/download/erl_spec47.ps.gz

On the other hand, the solution to >>1'rant was made in Chicken (Scheme):
http://wiki.call-cc.org/chicken-projects/egg-index-4.html#web

>>1>>12
Cudder, you are talking shit again.

http://ahefner.livejournal.com/20528.html

>>24
wml
In 2013? Heavens.

>>31
Thats pretty decent... maybe demoscene could use a lisp-flavored revival.

why are gender confused people always have such a shit personalty

>>33
The answer is in the question.

>>34
i don't see how

>>35
Why faggots always behave like faggots?

No real life conservatives would ever accept you nutty hateful losers.

>>26
Go $HOME, please.

>>29
Here's a decentralized, P2P, IP2 social network with clients for PC and Android written in Clojure: https://nightweb.net/.

What cool things have you written in Erlang?

>>39
Terrific ‚^⎠