Discussion:
clone baldurs gate in lisp and open source, how hard?
(too old to reply)
Azathoth Hastur
2019-11-13 04:00:10 UTC
Permalink


how hard say?
t***@google.com
2019-11-13 18:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azathoth Hastur
http://youtu.be/phik1wKTYqk
how hard say?
$1-5 million.
Azathoth Hastur
2019-11-16 07:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
http://youtu.be/phik1wKTYqk
how hard say?
$1-5 million.
no no as free software
t***@google.com
2019-11-18 18:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
http://youtu.be/phik1wKTYqk
how hard say?
$1-5 million.
no no as free software
You could try a pilot project by generating Lisp bindings to the Unreal Engine.
Marco Antoniotti
2019-11-20 14:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
http://youtu.be/phik1wKTYqk
how hard say?
$1-5 million.
no no as free software
You could try a pilot project by generating Lisp bindings to the Unreal Engine.
Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?

Cheers
--
MA
Udyant Wig
2019-11-21 08:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco Antoniotti
Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?
Random GC?
Azathoth Hastur
2019-11-22 16:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Udyant Wig
Post by Marco Antoniotti
Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?
Random GC?
doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
t***@google.com
2019-11-22 20:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by Udyant Wig
Post by Marco Antoniotti
Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?
Random GC?
doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
Only for the last 40 years.

But I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.
Kaz Kylheku
2019-11-22 20:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
Only for the last 40 years.
I think well over 50, no?
Alan Bawden
2019-11-22 23:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaz Kylheku
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
Only for the last 40 years.
I think well over 50, no?
Maybe even 60. According to McCarthy's "History of Lisp" paper, they
started work on a compiler in the Fall of 1958, so there _might_ have been
something you could call a compiler by the Fall of 1959, 60 years ago. The
"Lisp 1.5 Reference Manual", published in 1962, discusses the compiler, so
there was _certainly_ a compiler by 57 years ago.
--
Alan Bawden
Azathoth Hastur
2019-11-22 22:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by Udyant Wig
Post by Marco Antoniotti
Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?
Random GC?
doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
Only for the last 40 years.
But I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.
sure it is
guy mentioned garbage colelction
t***@google.com
2019-11-23 00:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by Udyant Wig
Post by Marco Antoniotti
Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?
Random GC?
doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
Only for the last 40 years.
But I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.
sure it is
guy mentioned garbage colelction
Why would compiling to machine code be relevant to whether there is GC or not?
Consider:
Common Lisp: compiles to machine code (generally) and has GC
Python: does not compile to machine code and has GC
C++: compiles to machine code and does not have GC
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.

Kaz: Yes, 50 years is more like it.
You're making me feel old :)
Alan: You're not helping :)
Jeff Barnett
2019-11-23 01:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by t***@google.com
Post by Azathoth Hastur
Post by Udyant Wig
Post by Marco Antoniotti
Why ot the Infinite Improbability Engine then?
Random GC?
doesnt lisp compile to machine code now?
Only for the last 40 years.
But I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.
sure it is
guy mentioned garbage colelction
Why would compiling to machine code be relevant to whether there is GC or not?
Common Lisp: compiles to machine code (generally) and has GC
Python: does not compile to machine code and has GC
C++: compiles to machine code and does not have GC
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.
Interpretive BASIC?
Post by t***@google.com
Kaz: Yes, 50 years is more like it.
You're making me feel old :)
Alan: You're not helping :)
There were many many compiled Lisps by 1965: MIT, BBN, SDC, etc.
Further, (D)ARPA had let their Lisp 2 contract by that time - an attempt
to achieve an efficient Lisp + Algol amalgam - and work was underway.
--
Jeff Barnett
Paul Rubin
2019-11-23 01:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@google.com
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.
Forth, traditionally implemented by threaded interpreter.
paul wallich
2019-11-25 18:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Rubin
Post by t***@google.com
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.
Forth, traditionally implemented by threaded interpreter.
Albeit in the original-ish versions so close to machine code that you
could barely tell. (You could also argue that stack-oriented programming
the way Forth does it has implicit GC...)

paul
Kaz Kylheku
2019-11-25 19:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by paul wallich
Post by Paul Rubin
Post by t***@google.com
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.
Forth, traditionally implemented by threaded interpreter.
Albeit in the original-ish versions so close to machine code that you
could barely tell. (You could also argue that stack-oriented programming
the way Forth does it has implicit GC...)
Then we slide down the slippery slope of calling C having "implicit GC"
when it turfs non-static block-scope locals. :)
Paul Rubin
2019-11-25 21:02:40 UTC
Permalink
(You could also argue that stack-oriented programming the way Forth
does it has implicit GC...)
I've thought of the stack as a continuation which means Forth programs
are already sort of in CPS, but GC is something different. GC means you
can pass large objects around by reference, copy references freely, and
the GC automatically reclaims objects with no live references. Anton
Ertl (a well known Forth implementer among other things) suggested an
interesting classification of high level vs low level languages.
According to that classification, HLL's are the ones with GC.
Kaz Kylheku
2019-11-23 06:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@google.com
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.
Awk? Shells? Forth? ...?

Some BASICs I worked with in the 80-s had GC for strings, but it was not
a semantic requirement for their correct implementation; it just
simplified their implementation and defragmented their memory use.
Louis Valence
2019-11-23 19:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kaz Kylheku
Post by t***@google.com
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.
Awk? Shells? Forth? ...?
AWK has been compiled to C, so it has been indirectly compiled to
machine code. Does that count?
Kaz Kylheku
2019-11-24 03:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Valence
Post by Kaz Kylheku
Post by t***@google.com
I can't think of an example no machine code, no GC case.
Awk? Shells? Forth? ...?
AWK has been compiled to C, so it has been indirectly compiled to
machine code. Does that count?
Shell has also been compiled to C. I think Comeau Computing people
have or had one.

*That* Awk or Shell implementation isn't "no machine code, no GC", but
the normal ones are.
Azathoth Hastur
2019-12-13 07:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azathoth Hastur
http://youtu.be/phik1wKTYqk
how hard say?
Why not a better engine in lisp?

with moddable voice and pic and little cahracter graphics....and spell effect etc?

then make ti online

remember its playability and variety not graphic faggtory gmaer love

I am playing icewind dale 2 now its awesome


way better than fancy shtibird game on xbox etc

Loading...