Re: Lisp as a procedural language?
От | M. Edward (Ed) Borasky |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Lisp as a procedural language? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1224442203.14995.30.camel@DreamScape обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Lisp as a procedural language? (Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo@ttmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 09:24 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote: > "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net> writes: > > Someone at the PostgreSQL West conference last weekend expressed an > > interest in a Lisp procedural language. The only two Lisp environments > > I've found so far that aren't GPL are Steel Bank Common Lisp (MIT, > > http://sbcl.sourceforge.net) and XLispStat (BSD, > > http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~luke/xls/xlsinfo/xlsinfo.html). SBCL is a > > very active project, but I'm not sure about XLispStat. > > You see PL/scheme[1]? I don't remember who it was at the conference, but when I suggested Scheme, he said that it already existed, and that (Common) Lisp was really what was wanted. Scheme is a much simpler beast. Both Scheme and Common Lisp are similar in complexity at the core/"virtual machine"/interpreter/compiler level. But once you load on all the libraries, object models (CLOS), etc., Common Lisp is much bigger. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky ruby-perspectives.blogspot.com "A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." -- Alfréd Rényi via Paul Erdős
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: