Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I had the impression that there was a paper or article somewhere that claimed every sufficiently large project (not written in a Lisp variant) contained a poorly implemented Lisp interpreter. Google turns up nothing and a quick search of SO doesn't either. Is this something well known and documented somewhere I have forgotten, or just a figment of my imagination?
An actual document or link to such an article would be appreciated, if it exists. Otherwise, I will remove the question.
What Greenspun meant when he uttered this quip was that Lisp provides a great many foundational technologies for writing good software, and that programs written in other languages informally (and inferiorly) reproduce a number of them as they grow.
Yes, this claim is Greenspun's tenth rule (actually the only rule):
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc,
informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of
Common Lisp.
It is making a valid point about the expressiveness of Lisp-style features (particularly its kind of macros). However, it isn't serious to the degree you would write a paper on it.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
My question is simple. Is the programming language Snobol4 still useful to provide a modern day solution for pattern matching, or has regex in other procedural languages pretty much wiped it out in application?
The pattern language is modeled on context free grammars,
with context sensitive extensions that provide full (type 0)
computational capabilities.
This is from an introduction originally written by Robert Dewar, creator of the SPITBOL implementation of SNOBOL-4. Since both references are in relatively new, and maintained libraries, I'd think that even though the pattern language is not part of, say, JavaSrcipt with its statistically many uses, or part of other modern languages, it might surprise users of REs in terms of speed and power.
That being said, SNOBOL-4 patterns have been criticized for leading to hard to understand programs, for using FENCE, not NOT (Farber? Gimpel?) and other phenomena that seem to have a come-back with Perl5 compatible "regular expressions", and ICU's. They, too, are rediscovering some effects of backtracking and anchors. R.E. Griswold, creator of SNOBOL-4, has later created the Icon programming language. It features generators and goal directed evaluation, thus taking backtracking to a level at which arguably search is more clearly expressed than one could do using the implications of complex patterns.
Insofar as this historic development is preceding today's "REs" growing in power, I'd say that SNOBOL-4 patterns offer something to the profession for evaluation, what to do again and what not to do again.
Say, do we need a BAL pattern in practice?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Its just a question out of my curiosity. Though generally considering the Framework and the steps involved in Execution, i'd say yes. Still i would also like to consider the factors like Memory/Disc access and networking which limit the performance of unmanaged code.
Quoting Herb Sutter
"First, JIT compilation isn’t the main issue. The root cause is much more fundamental: Managed languages made deliberate design tradeoffs to optimize for programmer productivity even when that was fundamentally in tension with, and at the expense of, performance efficiency."
There’s always an inescapable and fundamental difference between “prevention” and “cure” — when it comes to performance optimization, C++ always chooses “prevention,” and managed languages choose “cure” with the above-mentioned heroic efforts and many more. But the old ounce/pound saying is inescapable; you can’t beat prevention (in part because you can always add the cure after first doing the prevention, but not the reverse), and if you care about performance and control primarily then you should use a language that is designed to prioritize that up front, that’s all.
You can refer this article for more clarity
http://www.i-programmer.info/professional-programmer/i-programmer/4026-the-war-at-microsoft-managed-v-unmanaged.html
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
In this greak talk Value of Values, Rich talks about Place Oriented Programming (PLOP) which mutates data in place, lets call the languages with everything immutable or values as Value Oriented Programming (VLOP) for a moment. What languages other than Clojure are VLOP and how they implemented immutability (e.g. Structural Sharing, Plain Copy etc.) ?
"Value-oriented programming" is, more or less, just an alternative name for functional programming. For example, see here (1998) or here (2004), and most prominently, Andrew Appel's 1995 talk "Value-oriented programming, not object-oriented programming!" (which I cannot find online). The actual term can be traced back to at least 1981.
Unfortunately, the name never caught on, although Appel and other people have argued in the past that it is more accurate (and perhaps also more buzzword-compliant), and would have made functional programming an easier sell.
In other words, you are just looking for functional languages, of which there are many. Most famously, Haskell, ML (Ocaml and SML), Scheme.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm completely new to the Algorithmic Trading domain. I've just completed a course that was Ocaml based, and read about Jane Street. Obviously they are a huge company with a large amount of resources, but is it feasible to use Ocaml for small time algorithmic trading?
I know that probably seems like a stupid question, but (from what i've found) there aren't any trading APIs for Ocaml. This would mean one would have to written from scratch correct?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated guys, like I said I am a complete noob to this domain.
Thanks!
I've recently noticed this package in Opam that could provide a starting point for a trading API:
"IBX is a pure OCaml implementation of the Interactive Brokers Trader Workstation API (TWS API) built on top of Jane Street's Core and Async library."
As for open source trading algorithms in general this project started recently:
http://scarcecapital.com/hft/
I think this question is probably too open-ended for the Stack Overflow environment to be useful to you. Stack Overflow is for when you have a specific problem you're trying to solve.
But being opinionated, I can't help but say that OCaml might be pretty good for algorithmic trading. The strong typing system and immutable data tend to help avoid errors while allowing you to code quickly. This, at least, is what I've found. But you'd need to plug OCaml in to your data sources and your trade execution channel, which would be extra work. Knowing nothing about this area, I don't know if there are libraries for other languages.
Most likely the folks who are actually doing this have an incentive to keep their secrets to themselves. But that would be true regardless of the language.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I'd really like to know what knowledge do I have to pursue in order to create scripting languages from the ground up, probably using C++, maybe python, for those are the languages I know.
I've searched through SO similar questions, but nothing comes close of what I'm asking. I intend to understand language processing, not natural language, but scripts that doesn't have the focus on human readability, only on functionality.
My first idea, without any technical background, was to create a scripting language that assimilates a bunch of logical statements and making use of advanced built-in algorithms like logical reasoning, pattern recognition, neural networks an statistical analysis, in order to provide lots of useful(or not) information.
Sorry my bad english, I learned online, as almost everything I cited here :D and that kinda explains my lack of theorical background.
Thanks in advance.
"From the ground up" is a quite relative term, especially if you consider Python as the implementation language. I think what you are looking for is the implementation of a domain specific language (DSL). Good starting points might be this book or this one. DSLs are a wide topic, so if you provide more details, we might be able to give better tips.