mzan @mzan@qoto.org

@freemo the problem of a "deep nuanced quality conversation" is that it will be very brief: "We are destroying the planet, without an effective plan for avoiding this".

We live in an hypocritical time. We are surrounded from lies, and we know they are lies. Journalists are like the musicians of Titanic.

@freemo please... you used "stars" instead of "dots", and this can hurt the sensibility of astigmatic people! 😃

@rml as I already said, #chez uses Nanopass, that is a Scheme DSL where you specify: layers of intermediate code representations (IR); small and composable compilation pass on/between them.

Thanks to this approach, #chez source code is one of the shortest and more readable compilers on the planet, despite it produces very fast compiled code for Scheme that is a language difficult to compile in an efficient way.

#chez is a clear example that if you use the right paradigm (i.e. Nanopass DSL), then the problem became easier.

@pfpoitras

@freemo they found that: case A) the experiment costs zero; case B) the experiment halted because each twin tried to blackmail the other twin in an infinite loop of greediness.

@PaniczGodek maybe Scheme88 that is an implementation of Scheme in CL, or "BBN Butterfly Common Lisp" that is an implementation of CL in Scheme.

@PaniczGodek a first time project started in Scheme, before discovering that Common Lisp is better 🙂

@freemo the question started as funny, but if I think better, I touch during the day/week nearly every part of my body. It is a sort of checkup. If there is something of strange, I will notice it.

Said this, I agree that there is an excess of attention towards the junk 🙂

@rml

you are lucky: @hayley worked on the SBCL GC, so she can answer.

My 2cents are that, apart the GC, CL gives you a lot of power for optimizing memory management because: with MOP you can customize the memory layout of CLOS objects; if performances are important, you can work on big-chunk of data, stored in arrays, and here CL can give you a lot of options for specifying their format. In both cases, you are reducing the work for the GC, because you have less objects, and you can control (at least partially) how they are stored.

It is a lot of power, that few PL offers.

@ramin_hal9001 @screwtape @awkravchuk

@ramin_hal9001

> That said, I see no reason why all of these different runtimes couldn't be implemented in a version of Lisp that used Rust-like memory management,

The concept of run-time is wider than a Rust-like "minimum common denominator".

A DBMS with its index types and its query plans is a "run-time". It offers various operations with specific cost-models.

The BEAM with its fine-grained concurrency is a run-time minimizing latency, but with rather limited bandwidth (they are working on a JIT). If you try to call C libraries into BEAM code, you increase bandwidth but you can ruin totally the latency aspects, and you can block services. So, you had to implement the BEAM in Rust, instead of C, but it will be a BEAM run-time, not a Rust run-time.

Linux kernel BPF code is an ad-hoc high-level managed language that can be compiled to efficient code, taking in account also all other submitted BPF fragments submitted by various applications. If you give to this language all the power of Rust, the kernel cannot check and optimize it.

GPU has its specific run-time, and the code must follow a certain paradigm.

The run-time can be affected by the characteristics of the hardware and/or of the problem domain. For the programmer, it is usually a simplified model from which you can derive the approximate cost of operations; the error that are signaled; etc...

We live in a multi-paradigm and multi-runtime world. We cannot escape this.

@screwtape @hayley @rml

@hayley

you can use one PL, but not one paradigm and not one run-time. At a certain point you had to introduce Actor semantic if you want to manage complex distributed systems, or logical programming if you want to specify complex business rules, and so on. In the end you have many PL paradigms, using more or less the same syntax. It is the Common Lisp approach.

@ramin_hal9001 @rml

@rml

> same guy who was adamant that C and C++ are the only serious programming languages,

The error is thinking that there can be only one programming language. Obviously, it is better reducing the number of PL and paradigms, but one is not the optimal 🙂

There are successful commercial software analysis tools written in Prolog. Many theorem provers are written in FP languages. Many workflow jobs that run on the cloud are written in Go. Rust is used for multithreading code with manual memory. Ada and Spark are used in operational software where there must be some proofs. Erlang is used for distributed services. Etc...

These are serious systems, used in production. If you try to rewrite them in C++, probably you will fail, because the task is enormous without using the proper PL for the specific domain.

@ramin_hal9001

@freemo I were not speaking about Trump, but about the stupidity of USA population, or of the USA system. @thatguyoverthere @cjd @georgetakei

@freemo

The fact that a large part of USA population think that it is fair to condemn Trump for sexual assault, given the proof on the trial, is not unrelated to the fact that a large part of USA population voted him. You had to be illogical in both the cases.

@thatguyoverthere @cjd @georgetakei

@freemo I always dream that a modified version of recumbent bikes can replace many cars and electric cars.

Here

https://ace-shop.com/en/why-recumbents/speed/

at 250w of human power, the speed of an aerodynamic recumbent is 69km/h vs 29km/h of a normal bike and 35km/h of a sport racing bike.

Imagine one of these bikes with a trunk, some small electric unit, etc...

@louis @RenewedRebecca

I prefer the LispWork suggestion, but there is also Eiffel

https://www.eiffel.com/eiffelstudio/

https://www.eiffel.com/eiffelstudio/screenshots/

I never used the portable GUI library, but the language is very nice to use.

@freemo

> I feel like the Miss Universe beauty pageant will be a really awkward thing to explain to the aliens when they finally visit us for the first time....

so can it be the case that Miss Jupiter will be more attractive than the most beautiful girl on Earth? 😃

@freemo

as motivation of gun-ban, I remember having read in some place that the differences between homicide rate in USA and Canada nearby cities were very different, and in favor of Canada.

During this discussion I tried to compare Detroit and Toronto, but there were no big differences. Rather similar.

Then I found a comparison between a big USA city and a rather smaller Canadian city, and it is not fair comparing two different type of communities.

Your data is rather convincing, in the sense that now I have doubts. So one more reason for not believing the media, without double-checking.

For turning completely my mind, I need obviously to research more data, because stats can lie, also if taken in good faith. But initially, I believed that stats were completely in favor of the ban, but this does not seem the case anymore.

@customdesigned @VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@freemo

I took my data from “Statistics Canada”

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006801&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=1961&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=19610101%2C20220101

I saw them only in number, but if I use your chart view (that is compatible with the numbers of my link), I agree with this last your message. The spike is clear.

My analysis was wrong because I saw only the numbers, not the charts. My fault.

Remain the fact that also in USA in the same period there were a similar increase.

Maybe the law introduced in 1966 does not affect the already sold guns, but only the new guns.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@freemo

You said that in 1966, after the introduction of ban on guns in Canada, the homicide rate increased. And that it is the usual effect of these type of bans.

I noted that in Canada the rate were increasing from 1960, so prior to the ban of gun. It reached a peak on 1977.

1.28 homicide each 100k citizen in 1960; 1.41 in 1965; 3.0 in 1977.

Meanwhile in USA, from 4 of 1960 to 11 of 1977.

So one can derive, instead, that in these years the homicide rate increased both in USA and Canada, despite Canada introduced bans.

For sure, it seems that the ban of guns in Canada did not influenced the homicide rate. So my initial thesis is not so much convincing now. But your thesis about the increasing as consequence of the ban, is not completely validated, by these stats alone, because there were a similar increasing also in USA.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills