[FoRK] Raspberry Pi + Qt5 + OpenGL = awesome
rtomek at ceti.pl
Sat Apr 13 12:08:51 PDT 2013
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
> On 4/11/2013 5:18 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> > Lisp at the large scale software level is tough, as it's all
> > macro-based and no abstraction.
> Hmm. I have to say, I can't imagine programming in any language today
> that didn't have classes. C is OK because it's pretty simple to do
> structs with function pointers (all methods virtual). I think device
> drivers in UNIX circa 1971 did this. In fact when I first learned about
> C++ I was quite unimpressed because I had been doing C with ad-hoc
> classes for some time by that point. I was like "this is just syntactic
> sugar! Why are people getting so excited?"
To complement this, I can't imagine programming in a language that only
gives me classes as way to organize a code (plus usual suspects like
modules or equivalent). The need to make everything a class would probably
have driven me half nuts, I believe it almost happened once, will not
return to the valley of darkness anymore. It is possible I never fully
recovered :-) ... ("friggin cthulhu programming language! they want to
> But surely modern LISPs have classes? CLOS? Dunno, I've only heard about
> these things.
In case nobody answered the question yet (I don't know, I am catching up
with ca 4k unread messages in my inbox) - and mind you, I'm not an expert,
just a user:
- for Common Lisp, CLOS provides standard classes (both in a meaning it is
covered by Hyperspec, which to me defines CL, and in a meaning I don't
know alternative that I'd like to try instead). I never so far had a
need to use them but I may in near future; it looks reasonable and
decent so far. As of its possible faults that I haven't yet clashed
with, I could point to no OO implementation without faults, irks or
nonsenses, so... I will catch the bullet if I have to, because other
CL's features make me willing to do so, and C++ or Java proselytes,
please leave me alone :-) .
- for Scheme - R5RS and below have umpteen OO libraries in various repos,
some 20 years old or something, none of them anywhere near standard
AFAIK. There is a rather nice and portable library of extensions, slib
is its name, and it contains yasos (yet another scheme object system),
so if I wanted OO in Scheme, I'd probably go with this.
- R6RS Scheme - never learned it, R7RS is still in the making (probably
- other Lisps - I have no idea. The only Lisp not mentioned above which
I'd like to consider is Racket (the language formerly known as
DrScheme), a kind of descendant of R6RS Scheme (parentage of Racket is a
bit murky stuff, ehem), but I have lost track for a while. It is very
interesting from programmer's point of view, more than decent
alternative to P*/R* family of languages (and by extension, since I
consider P/R languages a decent alternative to J languages, so is a
Racket more than decent replacement to this J crawling horror), maybe
just not quite there in terms of available libraries - so this does not
apply to every case. But as I wrote, I have lost track. I am still
subscribed to their list, but no plans for near future to use Racket.
Kind of pity, because it comes with its own IDE, profiler and JIT. Just
MHO, of course.
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **
** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com **
More information about the FoRK