Functional Programming

[James Edward Gray II]

I've thought on occasion it might be neat to submit a ruby quiz
sometime, where the goal is to write, in ruby, the core of a Forth
interpreter/compiler, such that the rest of the language
(provided with the quiz) can bootstrap itself.

I hope you do. I'm Forth ignorant, so you could bring me to the
light.

I'll sure run it if you put something together.

James Edward Gray II

 

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

I hope you do. I'm Forth ignorant, so you could bring me to the light.

I'll sure run it if you put something together.

James Edward Gray II

Actually, what would be even more interesting would be a Ruby
interpreter written in Forth or Scheme, rather than in C or Java.

Seriously, though, a simple Forth can be built with indirect threaded
code and all that needs to be "bootstrapped" is the so-called "inner
interpreter". Traditionally, that's done in assembler for speed, but I
suppose a Ruby inner interpreter could be built.

 

[Zephyr Pellerin]

If you like Ruby, you may also enjoy Lisp since it influenced Ruby.
I'd recommend "Practical Common Lisp" by Peter Seibel. Or "ANSI Common
Lisp" by Paul Graham. Lastly, the classic "Structure and
Interpretation of Computer Programs" by Abelson and Sussman would be
good.

Or you can just skip the books and simply stop assigning to
variables

Brian Adkins

((()((())()(()()()(((((((((((((()))())))))((((())))))))))))))))))))))((((((((()()()()()))))

Very few people *enjoy* Lisp.
All of them have a Parenthesis fetish.

 

[Zephyr Pellerin]

Anybody here remember SISAL? ID (Irvine Dataflow)? At least Matz

remembered CLU. I personally think Erlang is the last best hope for
functional programming.

Judging by the activity of comp.lang.superlang, I would say it doesn't
have much, But regardless, Erlang is pretty awesome as well, For its own
merits, Outside of what programming paradigm it fits in.

 

[Kyle Schmitt]

Thanks! I thought they had their own compiler.

Way way OT but They kind of still do for ppc.

They had their own compiler for 68k & ppc, then OSX started, and they
moved over to gcc. GCC at that point had fair to poor ppc performance
on 32bit, and wretched on 64bit.
...So apple poured a lot of work into the PPC version (which they
properly released IIRC), especially the G5 stuff. Unfortunately some
of it was so radically different (weather or not you can say it was
good or bad different is up to debate), that half or more of their
changes never made it into the main gcc branch.

So apple maintained (maintains?) their own PPC specific branch of gcc.


</information type="useless">

--Kyle