/tech/ - Technology★

You don't need to install entire Racket. Read the docs dumbass. That's like saying you need GCC to run a C program. Of course you do, dumbass.

>>952416

https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/

Now kill yourself, and go back to /g/, winshill.

>>952421

If you have some spare time give CL's native GUI, McClIM a spin. It's a recreation of Genera's toolkit and a pure joy to use.

>>952428

It's a fucking compiler also. It's like he's arguing that to run a C program you need to download a compiler.

>>952421

import textEditor
textEditor.run()

>>952432

It's like the opposite.

>>952437

Yes, keep moving the goalposts. This is racket's standard library. Do you want me to write a GUI toolkit from scratch? But why stop there, should I also rewrite Xorg in lisp? While I'm at it why not also rewrite the whole userspace and the kernel? Oh so now the BIOS is not written in lisp, let me also rewrite that. What is this? Firmware of NIC is written in lisp? And what is this? A LCD controller with firmware written in C? Hahaha lispfags can't even write text editor in pure lisp. I bet you would still complain that electricity from power grid uses PLCs and other hardware that has firmware written in C or something. Then you would complain that trucks used to deliver the hardware also run C in their ECUs. Every GUI toolkit has some sort of text-editor widget, look at Qt or GTK. Editing text is a common task and reimplementing widget from scratch every time is counterproductive. Do you think notepad doesn't use a widget of whatever toolkit windows uses to enable text editing?

>>952443

can we end these fucking threads now?

https://github.com/LightTable/LightTable

>>952443

>moving the goalposts blah blah blah

The challenge has been clear for 100s of posts now.

>>952447

>11 posts in

>shut it down

what a gommunity

>>952455

>le jew ecks dee

>>>/cliff/

>>952421

>shalompad

gas.png

>>952400 (OP)

>[autistic screeching]

>ask question expecting to not get answer

>get answer

UH WHAT I MEANT IS HOW COME THERE ISN'T AN iOS APP FOR IT

>>952493

>>>/cuckchan/

>>952493

>Now all you need to do is provide sources and binary so people can use it.

Here you go:

#lang racket/gui

(define frame (new frame% [label "Shalompad - Ver 0.1 (OP is a faggot)"] [width 640] [height 480]))
(define editor-canvas (new editor-canvas%
                           (parent frame)
                           (label "Editor Canvas")))

(define text (new text%))
(send editor-canvas set-editor text)

(define menu-bar (new menu-bar%
                      (parent frame)))

(define file-menu (new menu%
     (label "&File")
     (parent menu-bar)))

(define edit-menu (new menu%
     (label "&Edit")
     (parent menu-bar)))

(define search-menu (new menu%
     (label "&Search")
     (parent menu-bar)))

(define help-menu (new menu%
     (label "&Help")
     (parent menu-bar)))

(new menu-item%
     (label "Open")
     (parent file-menu)
     (callback (lambda (item event)
                 (define file (get-file))
                 (if file
                     (let () 
                       (define in (open-input-file file))
                       (send text insert (port->string in))
                       (close-input-port in))
                     #f))))

(new menu-item%
     (label "Save As...")
     (parent file-menu)
     (callback (lambda (item event)
                 (define file (put-file))
                 (if file
                     (let ()
                       (define out (open-output-file file #:mode 'binary #:exists 'replace))
                       (display (send text get-text) out)
                       (close-output-port out))
                     #f
                 ))))

(new separator-menu-item% (parent file-menu))
(new menu-item%
     (label "Oy Vey, shut it down!")
     (parent file-menu)
     (callback (lambda (item event)
                 (exit)
                 )))

(send frame show #t)

Linux binary:

https://a.cockfile.com/MR0OcP.

SHA1 sum: 7536a1c8b14102be7aeb8a09e3448a6bdd1d92ad

Or compile with "raco exe --gui filename.rkt" if you think I put something harmful in the binary.

Now off to >>>/g/ you go.

>>952496

you are a terrorized member of the lisp computer-god memefaggotry

Good lord why do you people fight over programming languages of all things? This is the equivalent of fighting over construction tools

Programming languages are just tools, nothing else

>>952509

>not fighting over tools

faggot, there are clear differences in quality between tools

>>952509

No one (hopefully) takes this seriously, we're just having fun.

>This is the equivalent of fighting over construction tools

I bet he bought his angle grinder at harbor freight.

>>952514

>He probably buys Festool which is only marginally better constructed at trice the price.

Also good on >>952496 for delivering.

>>952496

(define search-menu (new menu%
     (label "&Search")
     (parent menu-bar)))

(define help-menu (new menu%
     (label "&Help")
     (parent menu-bar)))

Is this a reverse troll? You tricking the LARPers?

>>952496

>Linux binary

404

>>952539

Does Java need a binary to run on Linux (or Windows/Mac), other than the JRE?

>>952542

>other than the JRE

That's a pretty big "other than". Somehow even .NET on Linux requires less.

>>952543

Doesn't matter. Tons of android phones run Java stuff. If it fits on a phone, it will run on a desktop.

>>952547

>who cares about bloat XD

>>952547

>Tons of android phones run Java

You sound like Oracle. In the real world, almost nothing on your desktop is in Java despite 20+ years of Java, and Java on Android is considered to be a tragic mistake. Apple avoided lagdroid's garbage collection stutter with Swift, and Google is trying to develop an Android replacement which will only have Java for backwards compatibility.

>>952548

Everything is already bloated. I used to run Slackware with kernel 1.2.8 on a 486 with 4 megs ram. Not possible anymore with modern kernel and hardware. I could even run a slim X11 setup called TinyX on that computer. Granted, I couldn't run heavy clients, but it was enough for twm, rclock, and a few rxvts, and even Mosaic.

>>952550

So what? You don't have a problem running bloated GUI programs, if you're an average Linux user. So a JRE or other runtime isn't going to mean jack in the overall footprint of your OS.

>>952496

So I compiled this on Windows. It took 10 seconds despite being just a few lines of code, and the executable is a massive 13 megs. It looks like it bundled the entire racket interpreter in the executable. If I run strings on the executable, it clearly contains the racket interpreter (all these commandline options can't actually be used, it's showing their method of making a "stand-alone" executable is just shipping the whole runtime with the code and using the exe like a zip file).

%sgracket [<option> ...] <argument> ...
 File and expression options:
  -e <exprs>, --eval <exprs> : Evaluate <exprs>, prints results
  -f <file>, --load <file> : Like -e '(load "<file>")' without printing
  -t <file>, --require <file> : Like -e '(require (file "<file>"))' [*]
  -l <path>, --lib <path> : Like -e '(require (lib "<path>"))' [*]

SBCL does the same bullshit. What a joke.

>>952553

You might as well try to compile Perl programs. It wasn't designed for making binaries.

>>952552

Apparently it does mean jack as there are so few Java programs on the desktop. That's some real-world objective proof to counter your bullshit. Java programs are also difficult to distribute, much like lisp.

>>952554

Maybe that's why perl is a dead language.

>>952555

Not really, since a Java program can be bundled with what libraries it needs. All you have to install is the JRE, via your package manager.

>>952556

It's not any different with Python and Ruby. They're VM languages.

>>952557

Have you ever tried to make standard packages for Windows, Linux, and Mac for a Java program that work just like any other package for that platform, to the point the user is unaware that your program is in Java? Try it. That's why Java failed on the desktop.

>>952558

Okay, and how many cross-platform desktop apps are you using written in python or ruby? Like lisp and Java they also have deployment issues which is why they got pigeon-holed as web and scripting languages despite being designed as "general-purpose".

Meanwhile, I can write C++ code for literally anything and know that it will run and work the way the user is accustomed to and not force them to do things any different.

>>952553

That is true. As seen in the racket docs.

Homever, you can compile Racket into C and get smaller binaries, if you are able to read documentation and use a search engine (which you've proven to be unable to do).

Anyways, the simple text editor is done, you have a binary that runs across systems, so shut the fuck up and go back to /g/.

>>952561

>if you are able to read documentation and use a search engine

How about you just provide a proper fucking executable rather than continue to make excuses? I ran the exact command as given in >>952496

>>952563

It's a proper fucking executable, retard. It runs everywhere, and runs exactly like intended.

>>952564

>proper executable

>it's an executable zip file with the entire interpreter included

wew

>>952565

everything that was asked is done, so stfu and go back to leddit

>>952560

I've come across plenty of games and emulator front-ends made in Java, so apparently it's useful enough to work on Windows/Linux/Mac desktops. Here's a few I happened to like:

http://flapp.sourceforge.net/

http://crossfire.real-time.com/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/jflagcap/

>>952568

Yeah, you met the requirements in the most pajeet way possible by bundling the whole interpreter rather than compile it.

>>952400 (OP)

>Zmacs is 1980's history, no binaries, no source, can't verify anything, so no.

I have the source. You could look up a video of it though.

>>952496

>binary 404'd

>save source code

>install racket to get the compiler

>compile

>run

>works

>uninstall racket

>stops working as soon as you uninstall racket

It was stated pretty clearly in OP that it doesn't count if you need to install the entire language just to run the executable.

>>952574

if you were using a Scheme machine he could've given you a binary that uses the local Scheme runtime, same as a bare C binary would do.

>>952496

>binary 404

<command bundles the whole goddamn interpreter in it

I can't take a language that can only produce 32 MB "Hello world" executables seriously.

>>952421

> I've only read first chapter of SICP

Stop shilling that overrated piece of garbage.

>>952400 (OP)

I fucking love these threads, please keep going at it sweet Kizuna.

>>952582

Good to know that it'd have worked were we living in an alternate universe.

>>952411

>That's like saying you need GCC to run a C program.

But you don't. Once you've compiled it and created an executable binary, you can uninstall gcc and your program will still work.

>>952584

well....

tbh I can't either.

abandon your lisp fetishism and take up ML.

apart from being too cowardly to become an American, he was pretty cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Milner

>>952581

I forgot to mention that you have to also use "raco distribute" in the build process to make it portable https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/exe-dist.html

To my defense It's the first time I've used racket to make something with it.

>>952602

ML-based languages are really nice, variant types in OCaml for example are the one thing I really miss when writing Haskell.

There is nothing cowardly, however, in not becoming an American, since it's impossible in the first place. Actual Americans are almost extinct.

>>952584

Notice the "#lang racket/gui" line. There is a whole GUI toolkit included in that executable. Hello world would only take about 1M with base language only which could be brought down even more to about 300K.

Is there something about lisp that makes it impossible to compile for real? It seems like all the "compilers" we've seen just bundle the whole intetpreter. What aspect of the language is crippling it?

>>952610

A win32 or GTK Hello, World text widget would be under 10k, and almost all of that would be ELF and PE header bloat. Compiled more carefully, could get it down to 1k.

>>952611

>What aspect of the language is crippling it?

The programmers.

>>952611

Well when a program crashes you enter the debugger and from there you can eval anything, so that means you need to bundle all of common lisp too. Most people bundle a bloated interpreter though. A basic ECL binary is only like 13 KiB. Proprietary implementations have proper tools for making small binaries that free ones do not offer.

>>952624

and 40 years have passed since. we should aspire to move forward and innovate instead of getting stuck in the past.

40 years until kernels written in javascript

>>952624

I know, I used to do 1k intros for DOS complete with a limited s3m player. If you look at the text segment it'd be like 100 bytes most of which is 64 bit bloat (never test errors with == -1, by the way). The rest is one-time setup for various modern bullshit that is hard to remove via compiler options. Thread-local support, mmapped stringtable hash, etc..

>>952611

I'm not a lispfag, but I feel like playing devil's advocate right now.

Due to its intrinsic dynamic properties, like dynamic typing, macros, symbolic evaluation and being able to treat code itself as data and vice versa, Lisp basically requires an highly capable runtime environment to actually do all of those things. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, for Python.

It's not about being "high level": Haskell and ML can be compiled without issues to native code that doesn't need an additional runtime to be executed, just like C can. Even Java can be easily compiled to native code that doesn't need the JVM to run if you use a compiler such as GCJ, although that kinda defeats the point of using Java. It's still quite interesting to do, though, and the performance is surprisingly good, although not on par with C++ or C.

Notice one thing all these languages have in common: they feature a *static* type system.

This is by far the most important kind of information to give to the compiler. By knowing what kind of data functions take in, what they return and having all operations among types unambiguously defined, the compiler can easily generate code that assumes some properties about the data it manipulates (Integers of a certain size? Strings? Lists?) without needing to check at runtime if those operations are permitted, since static analysis has guaranteed that function f will receive, say, an integer and a string every time it is invoked. You can't do the same with dynamic typing.

The often mentioned property about static typing catching compile-time type errors is really just a happy side effect, it's not, in my opinion, the most important thing about it.

Now, theoretically, even highly dynamic (not only with respect to typing) languages like the Lisps could theoretically be compiled down to a standalone binary, but it would pretty much require a massive amount of additional code you didn't write yourself to support its full functionality. And often, the easiest solution is to just bundle the interpreter with it.

>>952629

Too late.

>>952400 (OP)

>If Lisp is so good, how come nobody has even made a text editor with it?

Probably because Lisp is a commie language.

>>952553

Nobody cares about binary sizes in 2018 when the average hard drive has 500 gigs or more, anon. This isn't the 70s anymore.

>>952691

The problem is that the program isn't doing anything fundamentally different from what it did back in the 70s, but it has a way higher binary size for no good reason.

>>952691

I've got over a thousand executables in my bin directories of a basic Debian install. After doing "raco distribute", the racket text editor is 27M. If everything was made this way with racket, you'd make a basic Debian install weigh in at 30 gigs. I don't think people would be pleased, especially the cloud guys who pay per gigabyte. That you see nothing wrong with bloat this extreme is why people make fun of lispfags and why no one writes anything in it.

>>952698

>>952695

protip: If you assume the Racket interpreter is installed as a prerequisite, then there is no need to statically link the interpreter into the program. If you remove that assumption away, then your Racket program will need to bundle the interpreter functions by default

>>952411

Yeah sure so when I call eval in racket the whole thing just explodes? O wait it actual bundles all of fucking racket into the executable. When you run a c program it sure as fuck does not include gcc in the bundle.

>>952691

Holy shit, lispfags are now on the same level as webdevs.

>>952747

When you run a C program, the standard C library is preinstalled on your system to make it work.

>>952792

Dynamic linking has nothing to do with requiring a compiler for basic runtime functionality.

>>952796

Runtime interpretation is not an inherent property of any programming language, it is an implementation detail. There's no theoretical reason why a Racket program cannot be translated into machine code. It doesn't happen because nobody has made an implementation to make it work that way.

I don't get OP's binary obsession. People don't wail and scream that python isn't compiled. Why would one do the same about scheme? Most scheme implementations aren't compiled, they're interpreted. Even the ones that can be compiled come with an interpreter.

>>952801

> it is an implementation detail.

There is no theoretical reason brainfuck cant beat out a highly tuned c or assembly program.

>It doesn't happen because nobody has made an implementation to make it work that way.

Well mr lispfag come back when you get that magical sufficiently advanced compiler that will never exist for non trivial use cases.

>>952809

>People don't wail and scream that python isn't compiled.

Yes they do. It being a slow as fuck global interpreter lock piece of shit is one of the primary complaints.

>Most scheme implementations aren't compiled, they're interpreted

Only the bad ones are interpreted. Chez is godly.

>>952810

I though Chez decided on jit compilation or I terpretation depending g on which would be faster?

>>952817

Yes Chez is amazing

you have 10 minutes to convince me to use a lisp dialect over rust. i'm a beginner programmer, i can make a text based adventure and maybe a gtk-based calculator. rust has done pretty well for me and looking at C or C++ they look more complicated even with small programs. will *lisp make my life easier? how and why?

>>952826

You will waste your life implementing new lisps inside lisp and never actually write a program.

>>952826

>i'm a beginner programmer

>rust

I see the Klabnik's propaganda is working splendidly. Lisp is the language for the beginner programmer. Syntax is very minimal and very easy to learn which means you won't be wasting time figuring out what all of the

impl<T> AsRef<T> system.sjwlib::out>>faggot->OP.is()

>>952830

could you give me some examples on why?

>>952831

op thinks that having less syntax makes it easier instead of just making it impossible to tell anything apart

>>952832

efficiency at the expense of readability?

>>952833

no

>>952809

The thing is that Python users rarely if ever go around boasting about their favorite language's superiority, unlike lispfags. Not to mention that, unlike Lisp, there is quite a lot of useful software out there written entirely in Python.

>>952831

Let's take a basic example of implementing newton's method of calculating square roots. In lisp, when you start learning you would do something similar to

(define (sqrt-iter guess x)
  (if (good-enough? guess x)
      guess
      (sqrt-iter (improve guess x)
                 x)))

(define (improve guess x)
   (average guess (/ x guess)))

(define (square n)
  (* n n))

(define (good-enough? guess x)
  (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001))

(define (average x y)
  (/ (+ x y) 2))

(define (sqrt n)
(sqrt-iter 1.0 n))

Now if you take same problem and apply Rust you will get a mess of code that even author himself does not completely understand what exactly it does.

...
/// Safe solver hybidizes iterative method to ensure convergence.
///
/// Do not use this!
///
/// The code is both messy and untrustworthy.  I had to tighten to convergence
/// criteria to get expected results, for reasons I don't yet understand.
///
pub fn safe_iterative_root_find<F, I, C>(
    f: &F,
    iterate: &I,
    bounds: &Bounds,
    finish: &C,
    max_iter: usize,
) -> Result<f64, RootError>
where
    F: RealFnEval,
    I: Fn(&F, f64, f64) -> Result<f64, RootError>,
    C: IsConverged,
{
    // solver always kept in window
    let mut window = bounds.clone();
    let mut f_a = f.eval_f(window.a);
    assert!(is_sign_change(f_a, f.eval_f(window.b)));
... What follows is several lines of rust mess that nobody understands.

I actually couldn't find a simple implementation of that algorithm, closest to it would be something like (not actually what I wanted and uses external module)

extern crate num;

use num::FromPrimitive;
use num::bigint::BigInt;
use num::rational::{Ratio, BigRational};

fn approx_sqrt(number: u64, iterations: usize) -> BigRational {
    let start: Ratio<BigInt> = Ratio::from_integer(FromPrimitive::from_u64(number).unwrap());
    let mut approx = start.clone();

    for _ in 0..iterations {
        approx = (&approx + (&start / &approx)) /
            Ratio::from_integer(FromPrimitive::from_u64(2).unwrap());
    }

    approx
}

fn main() {
    println!("{}", approx_sqrt(10, 4)); // prints 4057691201/1283082416
}

>>952838

>lispfag trying to slide by turning this into an anti-rust thread

>>952841

hes not fucking wrong though holy shit

i really thought on settling down on some c-like language but clisp looks great rn

It's amusing. OP's threads trying to shit on lisp has only convinced me to work through SICP and learn scheme. Decided to go with gambit-c.

>unix.haters autist has single-handedly turned the whole board against lisp

What are some ironic moments in tech history?

>>952851

I know that your but hurts a bit already, but please prove us wrong by providing a mentioned algorithm written in the "correct way" so that we can make a proper comparison and determine what is best for a beginner. I honestly can't find a simple example on the internet.

>>952854

Hey lispfag I hate Rust. I'm just making sure you know your place.

>>952847

You must be a special kind of retard then.

>>952854

The thing is that, just like other memelangs, Lisp looks pretty in these toy examples, but it's proven incapable of making actual software.

>>952847

Don't bother, the last exercise is literally

<lmao just use c for this, we were joking the whole book

>>952861

Lol. I'm sure it's worth it. They say it's worth learning lisp even if you never actually use it again. I've done some reading about it here and there and I believe it.

>>952872

>Lisp is used for making actual software...

>Autocad uses it

LOL. Autocad uses it as an optional user facing scripting interface. It's not like the program is written in it.

>The main problem with lisp is ... that lisp is just too great thats why its not used for anything

yeah faggot its such an amazing language its impossible to write anything real in it

>>952872

>Imagine adding object orientation to the C and Scheme programming languages. Making Scheme object-oriented is a sophomore homework assignment. On the other hand, adding object orientation to C requires the programming chops of Bjarne Stroustrup.

Borderline retarded quote, making C OO is piss easy unless you're mentally deficient.

>>952882

>uses lisp to write complex ticket pricing system for airlines

>sells the company to google for $700M

>reeeeeeee, you can't use lisp to write real software

>>952885

>look mom I learned how to use structs

>we OOP now

Tell me again how can I implicitly pass self reference to the class methods?

>>952872

>Lisp is used for making actual software

Have you made a GUI app with Lisp? Have you made utility scripts with Lisp? Do you use Lisp every day, every week?

And no ricing emacs does not count.

>>952842

You'll almost always get a desk calc example from a lispfag or lisp book as it's one of the only examples they can give that isn't obviously a disaster in lisp.

Here's setting O_NONBLOCK on a fd in lisp, from Woo:

(defun set-fd-nonblock (fd enabled)
  (declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0)))
  (let ((current-flags (%fcntl/noarg fd F-GETFL)))
    (declare (type fixnum current-flags))
    (if (< current-flags 0)
        -1
        (let ((new-flags
                (if enabled
                    (logxor current-flags O-NONBLOCK)
                    (logand current-flags (lognot O-NONBLOCK)))))
          (declare (type fixnum new-flags))
          (if (= new-flags current-flags)
              (%fcntl/int fd F-SETFL new-flags)
              0)))))

Here's that in C:

fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, fcntl(fd, F_GETFL) | O_NONBLOCK);

lisp is a meme.

>>952912

Thats a retarded comparison. You can do same thing as in C in Scheme.

(fcntl fd F_SETFL (logior O_NONBLOCK
                            (fcntl fd F_GETFL)))

>>952918

Is the solution to each lisp problem to change lisp dialect?

>>952921

how is it a change of lisp dialect? it's just normal lisp functional syntax

>>952922

Is scheme common lisp?

>>952921

Obviously not. First of all lisp example in >>952912 is _not_ functionally equivalent to C example. Secondly, you can just replace "fcntl" in >>952918 with "%fcntl/noarg" or whatever syscall interface your CL distribution implements.

>>952924

int set_fd_nonblock(int fd, int enabled) {
    return fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, (fcntl(fd, F_GETFL) & ~O_NONBLOCK) | (enabled ? O_NONBLOCK : 0));
}

Happy?

>>952923

No.

>>952910

> Have you made a GUI app with Lisp?

I have made a small GUI app for my own use with Racket once. That said, I don't make GUI apps generally.

> Have you made utility scripts with Lisp?

Yes. Racket has a decent set of libraries, not as many as Python, but for processing JSON and turning it into something that can be passed on it's perfectly adequate.

> Do you use Lisp every day, every week?

No, but there is no single language I use every day, I will be stuck for a time with one particular language, then I'll have to juggle languages around on some days.

>>952912

Are you seriously comparing calling a pre-existing function with defining a new function?

How's your school break? Yeah, it's probably over by now.

Your homework's not gonna do itself.

Bump because this thread produces lulz

>>952570

>JaFL.bat

>java -jar flands.jar

Yeah, that's not a native binary.

>Crossfire

>client.c

>gtk2, written in c

>c files everywhere

Whoops, thats not Java!

As for the Jxclient, thats distributed as a jar alone.

>jflagcap

>launcher.c

>server.c

I'm assuming that's how they made the windows .exe for it.

Also

[code]

#include <windows.h> // Mmmm.

int main( int argc, char *argv[] )

{

SHELLEXECUTEINFO ExecuteInfo;

memset(&ExecuteInfo, 0, sizeof(ExecuteInfo));

ExecuteInfo.cbSize = sizeof(ExecuteInfo);

ExecuteInfo.lpVerb = "open";

ExecuteInfo.lpFile = "jre\\bin\\java.exe";

ExecuteInfo.lpParameters = "-jar JFlagCap.jar";

ExecuteInfo.nShow = SW_HIDE; // No dos box anymore!

if(ShellExecuteEx(&ExecuteInfo) == FALSE) {

MessageBox(NULL, (LPCTSTR)GetLastError(), "Error!", MB_OK);

}

return 0;

}

[​/code]

>>952400 (OP)

i wanna f*** kizuna ai with a strong nerve

>>952493

i want to blast her with my load all over her face and down her chest

>>953423

The java client is the most recent version on the main page. I guess you're just born retarded.

>>953467

That's kinda rude.

Languages like Lisp dialects and Haskell are not for actually programming in, they are for learning new and interesting techniques that carry over well into other programming paradigms. There are many uses to map/reduce/filter style functions and applying lambdas. Immutability is also extremely useful in writing code with less bugs.

>>953603

>they are for learning techniques that will never be used to write a program

Watch closely, ladies, as I unwrap my monad thus creating a bijective map which I will homomorphise into a text editor.

>>953603

Please don't conflate the two. At least I know that Haskell won't do dumb shit like adding an integer and a string once it runs.

>>953603

These languages made me appreaciate, longjmp, goto and macros.

>>953648

Lisp has real goto and real macros. C (since you mentioned longjmp) doesn't have either. C longjmp is a broken, hacky version of the goto of a real programming language.

>>953649

PLs are only as real as the software that is written on it.

Why do angry lisp men and unix haters have to be synonymous? I love Lisp, and I love the Unix philosophy. Neither are perfect of course, but what do the angry lisp men actually dislike about the unix philosophy?

>>953740

also, hating unix just puts angry lisp men in an even worse position.

>>953740

>Why do angry lisp men and unix haters have to be synonymous?

They aren't synonymous, but the two often coincide.

Just finished chapter 1 of sicp, and so far I'm really liking scheme.

>>953871

What's the proper way, then? So far all we've seen is goalpost moving.

>>953871

Because it's doable unless using a toy language.

>>953908

Yes, asking for something, getting it, then claiming it's not good enough or doesn't count for whatever bullshit reason is exactly moving the goalposts.

>>953957

Well for a start the very first post says no DrRacket and then you give an answer with DrRacket.

>Neither does DrRacket, you need to install entire Racket language for it.

>>953969

I didn't realize Anonymous was one person

>>953871

It's a challenge because it's beyond I'm a hacker I've been reading SICP for a week.

In fact Bill Gates used to say that if you can write a text editor at all after reading SICP you should send him your CV.

>>953986

>In fact Bill Gates used to say that if you can write a text editor at all after reading SICP you should send him your CV.

big news if true

>>953969

You can also make DrRacket a standalone program, but there is no point in shipping a Racket IDE without having Racket installed. And yes, a standalone Racket program does bundle the interpreter, just like any other interpreted language does. If you need small binaries don't use Lisp. Use the right tool for the job.

>>954009

A white man would have produced a simple self contained application by now. You've taken a pre-existing framework and bundled it with some hacky code. Literally pajeet-tier.

>>954009

>Clearly list constraints in first post

>Post answer that breaks constraints

>Complain about goal post moving because you cant read English

>>952838

> I therefore invite all rust code artisans to create simple implementation of Newton's algorithm for finding square roots that a beginner could understand.

Are you retarded?








fn main() {
    println!("{}", sqrt(783295.0));
}

fn sqrt(v: f64) -> f64 {
    assert!(v > 0.0);
    
    let mut x = 1.0;
    
    while (v - (x * x)).abs() >= 0.001 {
        x = 0.5 * (v / x + x);
    }
    
    x
}

Glad to see /tech/ is still a shithole full of LARPers.

>>954097

>panic when argument is 0.0

>Glad to see /tech/ is still a shithole full of LARPers.

>>954111

>lispfag panics when the posted example is SIMPLER than his in a BLOATED language like rust.

>>954097

>assert!

Why does assert shout? Can it also ask questions? Same goes for println.

>let mut

>mut meant mother in the ancient Egyptian language

This makes no sense whatsoever, do you mean mutable? Why wouldn't it be mutable. If you want a constant x, just say constant x.

>>954396

>Things should be mutable by default

you are fucking retarded

>>954396

XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

ebin. Anyways I'm gone for good now. I've wasted enough time on /tech/ already. Continue LARPing.

>>954397

What the mut did you mut about me, you fucking mut. I'll have you mut that I graduated mut of my mut at mut. I also have over 9000 confirmed mut's on muthub.

You're fucking mut mut.

>>953762

what do angry lisp men find fundamentally wrong about unix? Unfortunately I can't really compare it to Genera, and although Genera sounds extremely comfy, unix still has solid principles imo.

>>954397

They should be. A good language should be able to determine when something is used immutably and optimize it transparently and not need all that syntax gore. Rust however, is not a good language.

>>952691

>ha ha fuck it man! It's 2018 after all.

Never was, and still isn't an argument as to why we shouldn't be efficient where possible. Doing anything else is legitimately a waste in every regard.

This may not be a problem for say, a lisp compiler, and may be more of an issue of filesystems, but even if it falls into that case, it's still A problem that should be solved and not simply ignored. Why not put forth the effort to make it as good as it possibly could be, why half ass it? We need to identify and solve these problems, not ignore them.

Especially in a world where portable, battery powered devices, with a large range of hardware including low spec, are basically the norm. A place where efficiency is needed for practical reasons, that could be solved now. There's no reason to wait for hardware to advance when you could just make better, more optimal, software. Utilize the hardware better, don't fucking waste it, for you and all your users.

>>953536

They're all jars, so Java wouldn't win any made up competition invented by the OP.

>>954503

>A good language should be able to determine when something is used immutably

Yeah a good language should just recognize when a data structure is actually being used and optimize accordingly. Everything should just default to void* without the syntax gore. C however is not a good language.

>>954658

I'm not defending how C is largely blind to what happens to data. Just pointing out languages like Rust copied their mistakes but with more syntax.

>>952630

>never test errors with == -1

I'm a dumbfuck python programmer. can some1 explain to me why?

>>954465

>find fundamentally wrong about unix

The idea that it's okay to write shit software as you can just write a better version later. The problem is that it remains Good Enough (tm), so it never gets rewritten. There's a bunch of stuff that should be cleaned up, but no one is ever going to do it. This is similar to the idea that "worse is better", which is also a cancerous part of the UNIX philosophy.

>>954700

It frees up the compiler to optimize more by not being unnecessarily specific and on some archs uses shorter instructions too. Stupid contrived example:

extern int foo2();
int foo() {
  if (foo2() == -1) return 123;
  return 321;
}

   0:   48 83 ec 08             sub    $0x8,%rsp
   4:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  9 <_Z3foov+0x9>
   9:   ba 41 01 00 00          mov    $0x141,%edx
   e:   83 f8 ff                cmp    $0xffffffff,%eax
  11:   b8 7b 00 00 00          mov    $0x7b,%eax
  16:   0f 45 c2                cmovne %edx,%eax
  19:   48 83 c4 08             add    $0x8,%rsp
  1d:   c3                      retq

extern int foo2();
int foo() {
  if (foo2() < 0) return 123;
  return 321;
}

   0:   48 83 ec 08             sub    $0x8,%rsp
   4:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  9 <_Z3foov+0x9>
   9:   c1 f8 1f                sar    $0x1f,%eax
   c:   48 83 c4 08             add    $0x8,%rsp
  10:   24 3a                   and    $0x3a,%al
  12:   05 41 01 00 00          add    $0x141,%eax
  17:   c3                      retq

Also impressive how far gcc has come to be able to do optimizations like that.

>>954713

>compiling wirth g++

>>954725

>4 CYE

>not using C++

>>954708

>The idea that it's okay to write shit software as you can just write a better version later.

This wouldn't be so much a problem if the Good Enough solution didn't make it into production. Once other people start depending on its quirks you can no longer change the shitty implementation without breaking backwards compatibility.

>>954503

That's part of the implementation, not the language itself.

Mezzano has a text editor written entirely in Lisp.

>>954503

> A good language should be able to determine when something is used immutably and optimize it transparently and not need all that syntax gore.

Annotations are not just for the compiler, but also for the programmer. Declaring a variable immutable is like saying "don't mutate this down the line, you fucking idiot". Why would you do that? Because the validity of your code might rely on the assumption that a variable is never mutated. Without such a declaration another programmer might mutate the value and break things.

>>954838

No, it's part of the language.

>>954948

No, it's not.

>>955241

When they have a keyword called "mut" and other languages have things like "const" it sure as fuck is part of the language.

>>955266

That simply enforces immutability in the program, it doesn't guarantee optimizations per se.

>>955560

It's almost like mut and const are actually parts of the language and not optimization details.

>>955567

Thanks for proving my point.

>>955241

Yes it is. Aliasing in C isn't an implementation issue, you can't solve it without changing the language as the type system is inadequate for the language to know how the memory is being used.

Question, what does Lisp provide compared to a C-like language?

Why are there so many parenthesis? How does it improve computing? Is it faster?

>>955962

>Lisp provide compared to a C-like language

simplicity

better error / warning handling

no undefined behaviour

>Why are there so many parenthesis

Because of the language's homoiconicity. LISP code can be represented as a list. The macro system let's you essentially create a function which takes in code as one of its inputs and then outputs code as its output. Additionally when comparing it to a C based language there really aren't that many if you think how much brace spam C has. The difference is that C's brame spam contains {([])} instead of just ().

>How does it improve computing

Big nums are built in.

>Is it faster

Depends

>>955962

>what does Lisp provide compared to a C-like language?

smug

>Why are there so many parenthesis?

autism

>How does it improve computing?

It had no effect on computing.

>Is it faster?

There are few languages slower.

>>955971

>simplicity

As we've seen, even making a proper executable is a research-tier task in lisp.

>better error / warning handling

Implementation-specific and subjective. SBCL spits out a massive amount of worthless noise just by typing 1 character:

0] ~

; in: LAMBDA (#:G394)
;     (SYMBOL-MACROLET ((SB-DEBUG::ARG-0
;                        (SB-DI:DEBUG-VAR-VALUE
;                         '#<SB-DI::COMPILED-DEBUG-VAR SB-DEBUG::ARG-0 0 {1001E1D863}>
;                         #:G394))
;                       (SB-DEBUG::ARG-1
;                        (SB-DI:DEBUG-VAR-VALUE
;                         '#<SB-DI::COMPILED-DEBUG-VAR SB-DEBUG::ARG-1 0 {1001E1D8C3}>
;                         #:G394)))
;       ~)
;
; caught WARNING:
;   undefined variable: ~
;
; compilation unit finished
;   Undefined variable:
;     ~
;   caught 1 WARNING condition

debugger invoked on a UNBOUND-VARIABLE in thread
#<THREAD "main thread" RUNNING {1001E06493}>:
  The variable ~ is unbound.

Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:EXIT) to exit from SBCL.

restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
  0: [ABORT] Reduce debugger level (to debug level 1).
  1:         Exit debugger, returning to top level.

((LAMBDA (#:G394)) #<unavailable argument>)

>no undefined behaviour

In common lisp, setq on an undefined variable is undefined behavior.

>>955978

setq can define shit, dumbass

>>955978

also, if you can read through lines, you can see that error handling is perfect. ~ isn't a Lisp word, so you get an error saying the variable is undefined. then you're put into the debug shell, which i presume you cannot use.

just get good, faggot, I'm sure your C-loving ass can't even use GDB

>>955984

>UB means there is no behaviour or it crashes

wrong

>>955984

>I'm sure your C-loving ass can't even use GDB

I'm highly skilled at reverse engineering. I'm on a level you can't even comprehend.

>>958914

i'll have you know I graduated top of my class navy seals.

>>958925

I'll do one better, I debugged a stuck battleship once.

>>958895

>Oh yes, why have usable real-world application when I could just watch video of it instead,

Feel free to buy OpenGenera for several thousands of dollars to experience it yourself.

stevelosh.com/blog/2018/08/a-road-to-common-lisp/

>>952589

>I couldn't understand SICP, the post

>>952496

wait these dumbasses are actually trying to download that and run it? that sounds like a great way to get reminded to read your sicp every day with every spare mb of ram not dedicated to mining altcoins for this guy.

<But Lisp doesn't have static typing!

Common Lisp has strong static typing if you want it. Then there's Typed Racket and even stuff like Shen.

<Macros are useless! Show me where they are useful!

Pretty much any Lisp codebase, examples from On Lisp.

<Lisp can't be compiled to a standalone binary!

Consider the Chicken Scheme compiler.

<No one uses Lisp!

Macsyma/Maxima (early influential CAS)

Remote Agent (JPL)

N-World, Mirai (graphics)

Lisp has had (and still has) a far larger presence in the industry than ML or Haskell. Not surprising, since it originates from pragmatic American academia, as opposed to European academia, which is obsessed with PLT metamathematics wankery and all that. Moldbug BTFO all those wankers already: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/08/whats-wrong-with-cs-research/

>>962237

>Common Lisp has strong static typing if you want it.

Every time any language tries to hack in static typing into their dynamic POS system it never works

>Pretty much any Lisp codebase, examples from On Lisp.

One of the reasons lisp programmers can never build up complex software

>Consider the Chicken Scheme compiler.

They either ban eval and cripple the language or bundle a compiler and call it an executable. It's like including the JVM.

>list of lisp companies

Yes anon you have to list them. That's how few use it.

>than ML or Haskell

Wrong. Haskell is used for all of facebooks spam prevention. Handles literally trillions of requests a day.

>>962237

> Not surprising, since it originates from pragmatic American academia, as opposed to European academia, which is obsessed with PLT metamathematics wankery and all that

t. I have no idea how research works

>>962237

>Common Lisp has strong static typing if you want it.

Not really. In SBCL type declarations are assertions, basically just an implicit runtime type check. That is, if you optimize for safety instead of speed, if you optimize for speed then SBCL will just assume that the argument has the type you suggested and happily chug along, throwing any safety out of the window.

Typed Racket does have actual static typing, and it will get pretty anal when types don't match at compile time. But even TR has problems because it is built on top of dynamic programming. If you want to import an untyped module you have to declare the types of its procedures, and there is again no checking that your manual declarations are actually true.

>>952809

Python is compiled into bytecode you fucking LARPers. Get your facts straight.

>>962769

>bytecode

Yes this is surely what people mean when they complain that it isn't compiled.

>>952555

>Apparently it does mean jack as there are so few Java programs on the desktop. That's some real-world objective proof to counter your bullshit.

*insert literally any ERP/organization management system*

If it's not written in C# it's written in Java.

>>962769

Byte code? Oh you mean something my machine cant execute without an interpreter / compiler.

>>952581

I don't get it. Then that would mean that Python (CPython), Java (JVM), C# (.NET), JS (V8) aren't valid. inb4

>>964584

Yes anon because none of those languages generate an executable.

>>964594

Some processors can run java bytecode natively

>>952581

C:

>save source code

>install gcc (and its dependency hell) to get the compiler

>compile

>run

>works

>uninstall glibc

>stops working as soon as you uninstall glibc

It was stated pretty clearly in OP that it doesn't count if you need to install the entire language just to run the executable.

>>964670

glibc isn't part of gcc. You also don't need to depend on glibc. Dynamic linking is entirely optional.

>>964670

>what is static linking

look faggot dynamic linking is an optimization not a requiment

>>964739

Your argument is pointless in the first place, you're asking a managed interpreter language to run without its runtime. What you're asking for is not possible without bundling the VM in the executable.

>>964878

>to run without its runtime

A runtime is one thing, plenty of languages just require a garbage collector and what not. Having to include an entire compiler is the retarded part (eval).

>>964888

eval is not a compiler, it is the interpreter. An interpreter is not a compiler, this is the fundamental difference you are struggling to understand

>>964900

eval requires including a full compiler in languages that compile to an intermediate. That's why SBCL and Racket copy fucking everything into your executable.

>>964878

That makes the language shit, unless the runtime can be exceptionnaly tiny (see awk or sh).

>>964908

They're compiled before they're interpreted, faggot. We've come a long way since TCL.

>>964921

Racket, Chiken, Guile etc are not JIT

>>using outdated complex techniques that were replaced in modern compilers

and this is why LISP isnt mainstream

>>964926

My mistake

>>965181

>planned is the same as having

Every shitty language PLANS to do tons of things

>>965230

They're LISPers so they have to write papers for a decade or two before they just write a 1k line backend to LLVM.

>>965324

It's called clasp.

>>965359

>we complain about 2 scheme implementations

>he brings up common lisp

LOL

>>958895

>RosettaCode

lol. do your homework next time.

I'd bet the OP won't be around after he gets the solution to his homework.

Lispers are so cool they're like pfft I can make like 50 text editors an hour but I don't because it's babby tier and beneath me. You want that kiddy shit go play with a toy lisp machine because I'm a pro. I have no time for editing text or whatever shit you think is important. So get out of my face before I drop an xkcd on you, fool.

>>965933

Nobody's going to make a program to sate some random anon's thinly veiled trolling in any language.

>>966115

Actually asking Lisp LARPers to program something? Truly outrageous. Sage it down anon it's the only way to take the moral high ground.

>>966115

He did not ask anyone to make anything. Even literally copy pasting an example. This is too much for lispfags though who don't actually have any software they can paste.

>>966115

>the reason almost no lispfag in the entire world has attempted this in the last 60 years is because of a post made in 2018

>watch as I continue the time-honored tradition in my community of making excuses

>>966347

>the reason almost no lispfag in the entire world has attempted this in the last 60 years is because of a post made in 2018

>the reason almost no lispfag in the entire world has attempted this in the last 60 years is because they have, succeeded, and it's not really worth it because better editors already exist, and most lispfags use emacs anyway

>>966933

>watch as I continue the time-honored tradition in my community of making excuses

<after nearly 3 months, lispfags still were unable to deliver a program fulfilling all of op's criteria

The absolute state.

>>966933

>because they have, succeeded

And yet you have wasted this entire thread not being able to post a single example of a trivial program

>>984948

>>984951

>>>>> >>952496 <<<<<

you acknowledged it.

you said it's shit.

"write an editor to my satisfaction" is a separate task.

for a fresh mock-the-lispfags thread subject, how about a nice roguelike game?

>>984955

>post program

>it's does not meet the basic requirements

>I DID IT GUYS I SWEAR UR CHEATING!

okay bud

>>984959

>LISP isn't elegant

you're talking about tooling, not the language. There's certainly no Lisp with tooling comparable to all that C has. Although I don't actually know about any tree-shakers for C; some commercial CLs have those.

if you want to know how elegant Lisp can be, check out https://letoverlambda.com/

>>984960

>just read the propaganda

No thanks. I'm asking why all the anons that talk about how great LISP is on /tech/ can't deliver a simple text editor. The one posted doesn't meet the requirements. Surely something as elegant and easy to use as LISP doesn't require this much dev time to get a simple text editor up and running.

OP was right you guys are just a bunch of LARPers

>>984960

You're text editor was not even capable of saving anything, a basic requirement.

>you're talking about tooling, not the language

And the language is incapable of developing basic tooling as shown for the last 60 years. Especially scheme.

>some commercial CLs have those. if you want to know how elegant Lisp can be

Ah you just have to use proprietary shit to know the true joy!

>>984962

>the language is incapable of developing basic tooling

basic tooling for a Lisp is precisely what Racket has. In Lisp, the model is that you have the language even at runtime. Not only that: you have the debugger at runtime. When Lisp programs crash, you should be able to fix them back up without ever stopping them, and you should be able to look at the data structures that led to the crash without resort to something like a core dump.

it's a nice system. It's an investment of effort comparable to one where you get neat little minimal-VM binaries like C will give you. It's an additional investment to have a Lisp *also* support neat little minimal-VM binaries.

also, languages don't develop stuff. people do. that lisp is relatively poor in human investment isn't something anyone's going to dispute. You want popularity, only? OK, go wallow in shit and Python.

>racket editor couldn't save anything

it's obvious that that's going to be only a little bit of work on top of what's already there.

not a racketfag though if I ever want to do anything in Lisp, I'll split the difference and do it in Erlang

>>984964

>basic tooling for a Lisp is precisely what Racket has

And yet you could not make a basic text editor in it. How funny.

>only a little bit of work

So trivial and yet you make so many excuses

>>984970

*shrug*

So for the record, you will stop making this exact thread if someone posts a variant of the racket code that also saves files, or some other Lisp editor with just its features plus file saving?

>>984974

I'm not op so no guarantees :^). I think the base line for a text editor would be:

- can open files

- can create new files

- can save files

- can copy and paste

no need for any fancy key bindings though.

Ops post also states

>make a usable open-source desktop application that can be distributed like any other desktop application

And they clearly want just a binary that can be run and distributed (find a way to make one :^] ).

>>984959

Not even C compiles into truly independent binaries. Go ahead and tell us what happens to your C programs after you do a rm -rf /lib. Making "no dependencies allowed" a requirement is stupid because assembly is the only language in the world where that's possible.

>>985038

>The OP has stated the requirements for months.

Requirements have been met by >>952496 with clarifications in >>952604.

Posting smug anime faces while shifting goalposts doesn't make you any less of a nigger, even if you are not OP but merely acting in his place.

>>985052

I don't have any bones to pick with Lisp, but what you're saying is wrong. There's not even a /lib directory on OpenBSD. All the stuff in /bin and /sbin is static binaries. They did it that way so you can still have a working system in single-user mode ("boot -s" at the boot loader prompt) even if the linker is hosed.

>>985113

It's a fully functional text editor which can open and save files. Adding other non-essential features is left as an exercise for the reader. Nobody is going to waste time writing software that nobody will use, just to please some faggot on some obscure imageboard, that just can't refrain from sperging out about the details of the implementation. Even if someone decides to add more features you faggots will still complain that it's not really pure lisp because firmware of LCD controller was written in C and not in lisp.

>>985124

>>985053

Op in the very first post says "no racket" and you post in racket. Good job faggot.

>>985145

>Neither does DrRacket, you need to install entire Racket language for it.

>let me just omit Dr from DrRacket

>look guys it says no Racket

Holy shit the amount of goalpost moving is hitting levels never before thought possible. Racket is a scheme dialect so it fulfills the requirements. DrRacket is an IDE for Racket language, you don't need it to write and execute Racket programs. Learn to read faggot.

>>985149

>requirement mentioned in very first post is goal posting

okay anon

>>985153

>Invalidating solution on bogus claims is not moving goalposts.

And where exactly is this requirement? Could you please show us where it says "no racket"?

>inb4 it's in the first post m8

You need to be more specific.

>>985124

The OP states all the features of notepad sans printing. Just admit your pajeet tier project didn't meet the requirements or better yet finish the damn job since you care so much to reply every time this thread gets bumped

>>985170

They literally have to duplicate the most out dated pos featureless text editor and they cant do it.