Search Results

Search found 488 results on 20 pages for 'lisp'.

Page 13/20 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

• What's the relationship between meta-circular interpreters, virtual machines and increased performance?

  - by Gomi

  I've read about meta-circular interpreters on the web (including SICP) and I've looked into the code of some implementations (such as PyPy and Narcissus). I've read quite a bit about two languages which made great use of metacircular evaluation, Lisp and Smalltalk. As far as I understood Lisp was the first self-hosting compiler and Smalltalk had the first "true" JIT implementation. One thing I've not fully understood is how can those interpreters/compilers achieve so good performance or, in other words, why is PyPy faster than CPython? Is it because of reflection? And also, my Smalltalk research led me to believe that there's a relationship between JIT, virtual machines and reflection. Virtual Machines such as the JVM and CLR allow a great deal of type introspection and I believe they make great use it in Just-in-Time (and AOT, I suppose?) compilation. But as far as I know, Virtual Machines are kind of like CPUs, in that they have a basic instruction set. Are Virtual Machines efficient because they include type and reference information, which would allow language-agnostic reflection? I ask this because many both interpreted and compiled languages are now using bytecode as a target (LLVM, Parrot, YARV, CPython) and traditional VMs like JVM and CLR have gained incredible boosts in performance. I've been told that it's about JIT, but as far as I know JIT is nothing new since Smalltalk and Sun's own Self have been doing it before Java. I don't remember VMs performing particularly well in the past, there weren't many non-academic ones outside of JVM and .NET and their performance was definitely not as good as it is now (I wish I could source this claim but I speak from personal experience). Then all of a sudden, in the late 2000s something changed and a lot of VMs started to pop up even for established languages, and with very good performance. Was something discovered about the JIT implementation that allowed pretty much every modern VM to skyrocket in performance? A paper or a book maybe?

  Read the article

• Scheme vs Haskell for an Introduction to Functional Programming?

  - by haziz

  I am comfortable with programming in C and C#, and will explore C++ in the future. I may be interested in exploring functional programming as a different programming paradigm. I am doing this for fun, my job does not involve computer programming, and am somewhat inspired by the use of functional programming, taught fairly early, in computer science courses in college. Lambda calculus is certainly beyond my mathematical abilities, but I think I can handle functional programming. Which of Haskell or Scheme would serve as a good intro to functional programming? I use emacs as my text editor and would like to be able to configure it more easily in the future which would entail learning Emacs Lisp. My understanding, however, is that Emacs Lisp is fairly different from Scheme and is also more procedural as opposed to functional. I would likely be using "The Little Schemer" book, which I have already bought, if I pursue Scheme (seems to me a little weird from my limited leafing through it). Or would use the "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" if I pursue Haskell. I would also watch the Intro to Haskell videos by Dr Erik Meijer on Channel 9. Any suggestions, feedback or input appreciated. Thanks. P.S. BTW I also have access to F# since I have Visual Studio 2010 which I use for C# development, but I don't think that should be my main criteria for selecting a language.

  Read the article

• Using Clojure instead of Python for scalability (multi core) reasons, good idea?

  - by Vandell

  After reading http://clojure.org/rationale and other performance comparisons between Clojure and many languages, I started to think that apart from ease of use, I shouldn't be coding in Python anymore, but in Clojure instead. Actually, I began to fill irresponsisble for not learning clojure seeing it's benefits. Does it make sense? Can't I make really efficient use of all cores using a more imperative language like Python, than a lisp dialect or other functional language? It seems that all the benefits of it come from using immutable data, can't I do just that in Python and have all the benefits? I once started to learn some Common Lisp, read and done almost all exercices from a book I borrowod from my university library (I found it to be pretty good, despite it's low popularity on Amazon). But, after a while, I got myself struggling to much to do some simple things. I think there's somethings that are more imperative in their nature, that makes it difficult to model those thins in a functional way, I guess. The thing is, is Python as powerful as Clojure for building applications that takes advantages of this new multi core future? Note that I don't think that using semaphores, lock mechanisms or other similar concurrency mechanism are good alternatives to Clojure 'automatic' parallelization.

  Read the article

• Origin of common list-processing function names

  - by Heatsink

  Some higher-order functions for operating on lists or arrays have been repeatedly adopted or reinvented. The functions map, fold[l|r], and filter are found together in several programming languages, such as Scheme, ML, and Python, that don't seem to have a common ancestor. I'm going with these three names to keep the question focused. To show that the names are not universal, here is a sampling of names for equivalent functionality in other languages. C++ has transform instead of map and remove_if instead of filter (reversing the meaning of the predicate). Lisp has mapcar instead of map, remove-if-not instead of filter, and reduce instead of fold (Some modern Lisp variants have map but this appears to be a derived form.) C# uses Select instead of map and Where instead of filter. C#'s names came from SQL via LINQ, and despite the name changes, their functionality was influenced by Haskell, which was itself influenced by ML. The names map, fold, and filter are widespread, but not universal. This suggests that they were borrowed from an influential source into other contemporary languages. Where did these function names come from?

  Read the article

• emacs keybindings

  - by Max

  I read a lot about vim and emacs and how they make you much more productive, but I didn't know which one to pick. Finally when I decided to teach myself common lisp, the decision was straight forward: everybody says that there's no better editor for common lisp, than emacs + slime. So I started with emacs tutorial and immediately I ran into something that seems very unproductive to me. I'm talking about key bindings for cursor keys: forward/backward: Ctrl+f, Ctrl+b up/down: Ctrl+p, Ctrl+n I find these bindings very strange. I assume that fingers should be on their home rows (am I wrong here?), so to move cursor forward or backward I should use my left index finger and for up and down right pinky and right index fingers. When working with any of Windows IDEs and text editors to navigate text I usually place my right hand in a position so that my thumb is on the right ctrl and my index, ring and middle fingers are on the cursor keys. From this position it is very easy and comfortable to move cursor: I can do one-character moves with my 3 right fingers, or I can press ctrl with my right thumb and do word-moves instead. Also I can press shift with my left pinky and do single-character or word selections. Also it is a very comfortable position to reach PgUp, PgDn, Home, End, Delete and Backspace keys with my right hand. So I have even more navigation and selection possibilities. I understand that the decision not to use cursor keys is to allow one to use emacs to connect to remote terminal sessions, where these keys are not supported, but I still find the choice of cursor keys very unfortunate. Why not to use j, k, i, l instead? This way I could use my right hand without much finger stretching. So how is emacs more productive? What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Is this how dynamic language copes with dynamic requirement?

  - by Amumu

  The question is in the title. I want to have my thinking verified by experienced people. You can add more or disregard my opinion, but give me a reason. Here is an example requirement: Suppose you are required to implement a fighting game. Initially, the game only includes fighters, who can attack each other. Each fighter can punch, kick or block incoming attacks. Fighters can have various fighting styles: Karate, Judo, Kung Fu... That's it for the simple universe of the game. In an OO like Java, it can be implemented similar to this way: abstract class Fighter { int hp, attack; void punch(Fighter otherFighter); void kick(Fighter otherFighter); void block(Figther otherFighter); }; class KarateFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation...}; class JudoFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation... }; class KungFuFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation ... }; This is fine if the game stays like this forever. But, somehow the game designers decide to change the theme of the game: instead of a simple fighting game, the game evolves to become a RPG, in which characters can not only fight but perform other activities, i.e. the character can be a priest, an accountant, a scientist etc... At this point, to make it more generic, we have to change the structure of our original design: Fighter is not used to refer to a person anymore; it refers to a profession. The specialized classes of Fighter (KaraterFighter, JudoFighter, KungFuFighter) . Now we have to create a generic class named Person. However, to adapt this change, I have to change the method signatures of the original operations: class Person { int hp, attack; List<Profession> skillSet; }; abstract class Profession {}; class Fighter extends Profession { void punch(Person otherFighter); void kick(Person otherFighter); void block(Person otherFighter); }; class KarateFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation...}; class JudoFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation... }; class KungFuFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation ... }; class Accountant extends Profession { void calculateTax(Person p) { //...implementation...}; void calculateTax(Company c) { //...implementation...}; }; //... more professions... Here are the problems: To adapt to the method changes, I have to fix the places where the changed methods are called (refactoring). Every time a new requirement is introduced, the current structural design has to be broken to adapt the changes. This leads to the first problem. Rigid structure makes it hard for code reuse. A function can only accept the predefined types, but it cannot accept future unknown types. A written function is bound to its current universe and has no way to accommodate to the new types, without modifications or rewrite from scratch. I see Java has a lot of deprecated methods. OO is an extreme case because it has inheritance to add up the complexity, but in general for statically typed language, types are very strict. In contrast, a dynamic language can handle the above case as follow: ;;fighter1 punch fighter2 (defun perform-punch (fighter1 fighter2) ...implementation... ) ;;fighter1 kick fighter2 (defun perform-kick (fighter1 fighter2) ...implementation... ) ;;fighter1 blocks attacks from fighter2 (defun perform-block (fighter1 fighter2) ...implementation... ) fighter1 and fighter2 can be anything as long as it has the required data for calculation; or methods (duck typing). You don't have to change from the type Fighter to Person. In the case of Lisp, because Lisp only has a single data structure: list, it's even easier to adapt to changes. However, other dynamic languages can have similar behaviors as well. I work primarily with static languages (mainly C and Java, but working with Java was a long time ago). I started learning Lisp and some other dynamic languages this year. I can see how it helps improving my productivity.

  Read the article

• List of freely available programming books

  - by Karan Bhangui

  I'm trying to amass a list of programming books with opensource licenses, like Creative Commons, GPL, etc. The books can be about a particular programming language or about computers in general. Hoping you guys could help: Languages BASH Advanced Bash-Scripting Guide (An in-depth exploration of the art of shell scripting) C The C book C++ Thinking in C++ C++ Annotations How to Think Like a Computer Scientist C# .NET Book Zero: What the C or C++ Programmer Needs to Know About C# and the .NET Framework Illustrated C# 2008 (Dead Link) Data Structures and Algorithms with Object-Oriented Design Patterns in C# Threading in C# Common Lisp Practical Common Lisp On Lisp Java Thinking in Java How to Think Like a Computer Scientist Java Thin-Client Programming JavaScript Eloquent JavaScript Haskell Real world Haskell Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! Objective-C The Objective-C Programming Language Perl Extreme Perl (license not specified - home page is saying "freely available") The Mason Book (Open Publication License) Practical mod_perl (CreativeCommons Attribution Share-Alike License) Higher-Order Perl Learning Perl the Hard Way PHP Practical PHP Programming Zend Framework: Survive the Deep End PowerShell Mastering PowerShell Prolog Building Expert Systems in Prolog Adventure in Prolog Prolog Programming A First Course Logic, Programming and Prolog (2ed) Introduction to Prolog for Mathematicians Learn Prolog Now! Natural Language Processing Techniques in Prolog Python Dive Into Python Dive Into Python 3 How to Think Like a Computer Scientist A Byte of Python Python for Fun Invent Your Own Computer Games With Python Ruby Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby Programming Ruby - The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide Mr. Neighborly's Humble Little Ruby Book SQL Practical PostgreSQL x86 assembly Paul Carter's tutorial Lua Programming In Lua (for v5 but still largely relevant) Algorithms and Data Structures Algorithms Data Structures and Algorithms with Object-Oriented Design Patterns in Java Planning Algorithms Frameworks/Projects The Django Book The Pylons Book Introduction to Design Patterns in C++ with Qt 4 (Open Publication License) Version control The SVN Book Mercurial: The Definitive Guide Pro Git UNIX / Linux The Art of Unix Programming Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition Others Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs The Little Book of Semaphores Mathematical Logic - an Introduction An Introduction to the Theory of Computation Developers Developers Developers Developers Linkers and loaders Beej's Guide to Network Programming Maven: The Definitive Guide I will expand on this list as I get comments or when I think of more :D Related: Programming texts and reference material for my Kindle What are some good free programming books? Can anyone recommend a free software engineering book? Edit: Oh I didn't notice the community wiki feature. Feel free to edit your suggestions right in!

  Read the article

• Reading multiple Emacs info files simultaneously

  - by pajato0

  For reading programming (and other) documentation, the Emacs INFO mode is outstanding. So outstanding that I would like to be able to read say, the Emacs Lisp info file and the org-mode info files simultaneously without traversing back up to the beginning of the info tree. Either I've missed something obvious or I will need to hack some Emacs Lisp to achieve the goal. And yet again, someone may have already cracked this nut. So I guess my question is: what is the state of the practice for reading mulitple INFO files in Emacs simultaneously?

  Read the article

• Are there any purely functional Schemes or Lisps?

  - by nickname

  Over the past few months, I've put a lot of effort into learning (or attempting to learn) several functional programming languages. I really like math, so they have been very natural for me to use. Simply to be more specific, I have tried Common Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, OCaml, and (a little bit of) Erlang. I did not like the syntax of OCaml and do not have enough Erlang knowledge to make a judgment on it yet. Because of its consistent and beautiful (non-)syntax, I really like Scheme. However, I really do appreciate the stateless nature of purely functional programming languages such as Haskell. Haskell looks very interesting, but the amount of inconsistent and non-extendable syntax really bothered me. In the interest of preventing a Lisp vs Haskell flame war, just pretend that I can't use Haskell for some other reason. Therefore, my question is: Are there any purely functional Schemes (or Lisps in general)?

  Read the article

• Creating a new buffer with text using EmacsClient

  - by User1

  I have a program that can send text to any other program for further analysis (eg sed, grep, etc). I would like it to send the data to Emacs and do analysis there. How would I do that? EmacsClient takes a filename by default, this is a data string not a file and I really don't want to create and delete files just to send data to Emacs. EmacsClient has an "eval" command-line option that let's you execute lisp code instead of open files. Is there a simple lisp function that will open a new buffer with the given text?

  Read the article

• What is a good programming language for AI?

  - by Mark

  Besides Lisp and Prolog what is a good programming language for programming intelligent systems?

  Read the article

• Embedded Web Server Vs External Web Server

  - by Jetti

  So I've thought of creating a web application in either Lisp or another functional language and was thinking of embedding the web server into the application (have my application handle the HTTP requests). I don't see any issues with that, however, I'm new to creating web applications (and in the grand scheme of things, programming as well). Is there any drawbacks to handling HTTP requests within your program instead of using a web server? Are there any benefits?

  Read the article

• What defines a language as a scripting language? [closed]

  - by Mathew Foscarini

  Possible Duplicate: What is the main difference between Scripting Languages and Programming Languages? I'd like to know what defines a language as a scripting language compared against other programming languages. Some possible scripting languages might include AutoCad LISP, Linux Bash, DOS Batch, Javascript or ActionScript in Flash. Where is the distinction made that makes a language a scripting language? Are there a set of clearly define rules to classify it as such?

  Read the article

• Emacs color-theme suitable for maximum readability when projected [closed]

  - by Julien Chastang

  I will be giving a lisp talk in a few days at a meetup I regularly attend. Attendees have complained in the past about my emacs color theme not being readable when projected. What is a emacs color-theme suitable for maximum readability when projected? Post "Q & A" update I did some experimentation and found these color themes to be acceptable for projection Blue Mood blackOnGray Dark Blue 2

  Read the article

• What are the differences between Bigloo and ECL?

  - by Pubby

  I've been looking to embed Lisp in some C++ code. Two options I'm interested in is Bigloo Scheme and ECL. Reading through the docs they seem to support a very similar feature set. Obviously Bigloo is Scheme and ECL is CLisp, but what other differences do they have? In particular I'm interested in the following criteria: Ease of embedding (for C++, not just C) Performance Style of coding Size Tail call support I'm targeting this question towards someone who has used both.

  Read the article

• Why aren't web frameworks simple, elegant and fun like programming languages? [on hold]

  - by Ryan

  When I think of pretty much any programming language - like C, C++, PHP, SQL, JavaScript, Python, ActionScript, Haskell, Lua, Lisp, Java, etc - I'm like awesome I would love to develop a computer application using any of those languages. But when I think of web frameworks(I do mostly PHP) - like Cake, CI, Symfony, Laravel, Zend, Drupal, Joomla, Wordpress, Rails, Django, etc - I'm like god no. Why aren't there web frameworks that provide me with simple, fun and powerful constructs like a programming language?

  Read the article

• generic programming- where did it originate?

  - by user997112

  Im trying to work out if generic programming was a functional programming feature which was then introduced into Java, C++ and C# or did the latter copy it from the functional programming languages like Haskell, Lisp, OCaml etc? Google is giving me lots on what generic programming is, but not where it originated. All I can see is that Ada implemented it early on. Would you class it as a functional programming technique?

  Read the article

• 45 minutes to talk about C# [closed]

  - by Philip

  I have the opportunity to give a 45 minute talk on C# in the theory of programming languages class I'm taking. The college teaches Java almost exclusively, so that's what all the students are most familiar with. (There's a little C, assembly, Prolog and LISP as well.) I decide what to talk about. It seems to me the best approach is to focus on a few of the big, obvious differences between C# and Java. I don't intend it to be a recommendation to use C# -- there are reasons to use each, mostly because of their ecosystems. So I want to focus on C# as a language. I don't want to go too fast and end up listing a whole bunch of features without showing their usefulness. My current plan is this: Functions as first class objects. This is, in my opinion, one of the biggest differences between C# and Java. The professor briefly mentioned this notion and showed a LISP example, but many of the students have probably never used it. I can show real world examples where it's made my code more readable. Lambda expressions as concise syntax for anonymous functions. Obviously with examples to show how this is useful. The real hit-home examples will be at the end when it's combined with the rest. I don't see an advantage to first showing the old delegate syntax and then replacing it with lambdas -- most of us won't have ever seen delegates anyway so it would just be confusing. The yield keyword and how it's different from returning an array. I have the impression that a lot of C# developers aren't familiar with how to use this. It will likely be very foreign to Java developers. I have some examples from my own work where it was really useful, such as iterating over a tree traversal, or iterating over neighbors in a graph where the neighbors aren't stored in memory. In both cases, doing it in Java would likely mean returning a complete list -- with yield I can stop iterating if I find what I want early on, without using memory for superfluous lists or arrays. Extension methods as a way to write implementation on interfaces. We'll all be familiar with how interfaces don't allow method implementation, and how this leads to code duplication. I'll show a specific example of this and how the extension method can solve the problem. Demonstrate how the above can be combined by implementing some simple Linq methods and using them. Where, Select, First, maybe more depending on how much time is left. Ideas on which ones might 'hit home' the best? There are other things I could talk about such as generics, value types, properties and more. I haven't yet though of good ways to incorporate these. In the case of generics and value types, the advantages might not be obvious or as relevant. Properties are obviously useful, particularly since we're taught strict JavaBeans here, but I don't know if I could integrate it with the "path to Linq" discussion above without it feeling tacked on. So I'm looking for thoughts on how to talk about C#, and what to talk about. Even minor details. I'm sure there are more experienced C# developers than me here who have good insight about what's really important in the language, and what would miss the point.

  Read the article

• Optimal Data Structure for our own API

  - by vermiculus

  I'm in the early stages of writing an Emacs major mode for the Stack Exchange network; if you use Emacs regularly, this will benefit you in the end. In order to minimize the number of calls made to Stack Exchange's API (capped at 10000 per IP per day) and to just be a generally responsible citizen, I want to cache the information I receive from the network and store it in memory, waiting to be accessed again. I'm really stuck as to what data structure to store this information in. Obviously, it is going to be a list. However, as with any data structure, the choice must be determined by what data is being stored and what how it will be accessed. What, I would like to be able to store all of this information in a single symbol such as stack-api/cache. So, without further ado, stack-api/cache is a list of conses keyed by last update: `(<csite> <csite> <csite>) where <csite> would be (1362501715 . <site>) At this point, all we've done is define a simple association list. Of course, we must go deeper. Each <site> is a list of the API parameter (unique) followed by a list questions: `("codereview" <cquestion> <cquestion> <cquestion>) Each <cquestion> is, you guessed it, a cons of questions with their last update time: `(1362501715 <question>) (1362501720 . <question>) <question> is a cons of a question structure and a list of answers (again, consed with their last update time): `(<question-structure> <canswer> <canswer> <canswer> and ` `(1362501715 . <answer-structure>) This data structure is likely most accurately described as a tree, but I don't know if there's a better way to do this considering the language, Emacs Lisp (which isn't all that different from the Lisp you know and love at all). The explicit conses are likely unnecessary, but it helps my brain wrap around it better. I'm pretty sure a <csite>, for example, would just turn into (<epoch-time> <api-param> <cquestion> <cquestion> ...) Concerns: Does storing data in a potentially huge structure like this have any performance trade-offs for the system? I would like to avoid storing extraneous data, but I've done what I could and I don't think the dataset is that large in the first place (for normal use) since it's all just human-readable text in reasonable proportion. (I'm planning on culling old data using the times at the head of the list; each inherits its last-update time from its children and so-on down the tree. To what extent this cull should take place: I'm not sure.) Does storing data like this have any performance trade-offs for that which must use it? That is, will set and retrieve operations suffer from the size of the list? Do you have any other suggestions as to what a better structure might look like?

  Read the article

• Are there any code critique sites or similar resources?

  - by Ukko

  I have noticed when people post example code illustrating some issue that they are having often they will gather a number of comments addressing the quality of the code they presented and not the actual problem asked. This is very helpful--if not well directed. Often, this is wasted effort since the asker is often not receptive and the code is often chopped down to something small to post leaving lots of rough edges. In the old days you would see people asking questions like this on comp.lang.lisp and other parts of the comp.lang hierarchy. But that bit of the net kind of sank into the sewers of neglect. Is there a comparable one-stop-shop today? I am partially asking for selfish reasons, I know how to write good idiomatic C, Lisp, O'Caml, and Java code. But I learned C++ pre-template and STL, those rusty skills are not really applicable to today's C++. I have picked up languages like Scala in a vacuum and get by, but am I really doing it correctly? There are so many ways you can abuse a language, I am currently working against a codebase of Fortran written in C, and I recognize and loathe the "that guy" who wrote it. I don't want to be someone else's "that guy" if I can help it. Just because it works does not mean that one did not totally miss the boat on how it should have been done. Do you seek out this type of critique? If so how, where and why? What types of benefits do you derive from it? How about abuse and trolls?

  Read the article

• how to notify a program of another program? dll? directory? path?

  - by Brady Trainor

  I am trying to experiment with GNUS email in Emacs, in Windows (EDIT: x64 bit). I've got it to work in Ubuntu, but struggling with it in Windows. From http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/emacs-gnutls.html#Help-For-Users I read in second paragraph: This is a little bit trickier on the W32 (Windows) platform, but if you have the GnuTLS DLLs (available from http://sourceforge.net/projects/ezwinports/files/ thanks to Eli Zaretskii) in the same directory as Emacs, you should be OK. I have downloaded and unzipped the gnutls-3.0.9-w32-bin package, but am not sure what to do with it. I have tried putting it in Program Files (x86), which is "the same directory as Emacs". I have tried putting it in the emacs-24.3 folder. I consider merging all the folders in between the two, but am hesitant as that seems a difficult troubleshoot attempt compared to my knowledge on these matters. I think Emacs needs to somehow see the gnutls binaries and/or dlls. My knowledge is limited on this. I've also struggled to understand PATHs for sometime now, and am not sure if that approach is relevant here. FYI, the emacs directory contains folders labeled bin, etc, info, leim, lisp and site-lisp. The gnutls directory contains folder labeled bin, include, lib and share. Hmm, now I'm finding lots of links on adding paths. Still, I'm skeptical that I would only add gnutls.exe path, as it seems the dlls are needed. Some additional data for Ramhound's first comment I have been attempting the (require 'gnutls) route. This seems to be the most relevant parts in the log: Opening connection to imap.gmail.com via tls... gnutls.c: [1] (Emacs) GnuTLS library not found Opening TLS connection to `imap.gmail.com'... Opening TLS connection with `gnutls-cli --insecure -p 993 imap.gmail.com'...failed Opening TLS connection with `gnutls-cli --insecure -p 993 imap.gmail.com --protocols ssl3'...failed Opening TLS connection with `openssl s_client -connect imap.gmail.com:993 -no_ssl2 -ign_eof'...failed Opening TLS connection to `imap.gmail.com'...failed I am not sure what "in stallion" means. Emacs seems to have installed itself in program files (x86), so I assume it is 32 bit. I can try and figure out how to double check, but did not realize I would get such fast response time, and am headed out right now. I will try merging the files later tonight?

  Read the article

• Adding autocomplete options to auctex C-c C-e?

  - by Seamus

  When I'm using auctex with emacs to write LaTeX documents, I would like to be able to add a couple more options to the list of environment types that auctex "recognises" and can autocomplete, namely Theorem, Lemma, Proof, itemize* and a couple of others. Which variable to I need to edit? I have played around in customize-apropos LaTeX and auctex, but I haven't found it. (lisp code snippet to add to my .emacs would be preferred, I don't quite understand the syntax yete)

  Read the article

• vim: remove previous code indentation and convert to another

  - by ramgorur

  I have a c project with multiple files (more than 100), the codes are written in Whitesmiths style, but I want to change them into K&R style indentation. Is it possible to do using vim in an automated way ? For example I have a emacs-lisp script to achieve this -- (progn (find-file "{}") (mark-whole-buffer) (setq indent-tabs-mode nil) (untabify (point-min) (point-max)) (indent-region (point-min) (point-max) nil) (save-buffer)) I was wondering if there is a similar trick that could be done with vim.

  Read the article

• An Alphabet of Eponymous Aphorisms, Programming Paradigms, Software Sayings, Annoying Alliteration

  - by Brian Schroer

  Malcolm Anderson blogged about “Einstein’s Razor” yesterday, which reminded me of my favorite software development “law”, the name of which I can never remember. It took much Wikipedia-ing to find it (Hofstadter’s Law – see below), but along the way I compiled the following list: Amara’s Law: We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run. Brook’s Law: Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Law of Demeter: Each unit should only talk to its friends; don't talk to strangers. Einstein’s Razor: “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler” is the popular paraphrase, but what he actually said was “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience”, an overly complicated quote which is an obvious violation of Einstein’s Razor. (You can tell by looking at a picture of Einstein that the dude was hardly an expert on razors or other grooming apparati.) Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives: Anything that can go wrong, will—at the worst possible moment. - O'Toole's Corollary: The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. Greenspun's Tenth Rule: Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. (Morris’s Corollary: “…including Common Lisp”) Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. Issawi’s Omelet Analogy: One cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs - but it is amazing how many eggs one can break without making a decent omelet. Jackson’s Rules of Optimization: Rule 1: Don't do it. Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it yet. Kaner’s Caveat: A program which perfectly meets a lousy specification is a lousy program. Liskov Substitution Principle (paraphrased): Functions that use pointers or references to base classes must be able to use objects of derived classes without knowing it Mason’s Maxim: Since human beings themselves are not fully debugged yet, there will be bugs in your code no matter what you do. Nils-Peter Nelson’s Nil I/O Rule: The fastest I/O is no I/O.    Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Parkinson’s Law: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. Quentin Tarantino’s Pie Principle: “…you want to go home have a drink and go and eat pie and talk about it.” (OK, he was talking about movies, not software, but I couldn’t find a “Q” quote about software. And wouldn’t it be cool to write a program so great that the users want to eat pie and talk about it?) Raymond’s Rule: Computer science education cannot make anybody an expert programmer any more than studying brushes and pigment can make somebody an expert painter.  Sowa's Law of Standards: Whenever a major organization develops a new system as an official standard for X, the primary result is the widespread adoption of some simpler system as a de facto standard for X. Turing’s Tenet: We shall do a much better programming job, provided we approach the task with a full appreciation of its tremendous difficulty, provided that we respect the intrinsic limitations of the human mind and approach the task as very humble programmers.  Udi Dahan’s Race Condition Rule: If you think you have a race condition, you don’t understand the domain well enough. These rules didn’t exist in the age of paper, there is no reason for them to exist in the age of computers. When you have race conditions, go back to the business and find out actual rules. Van Vleck’s Kvetching: We know about as much about software quality problems as they knew about the Black Plague in the 1600s. We've seen the victims' agonies and helped burn the corpses. We don't know what causes it; we don't really know if there is only one disease. We just suffer -- and keep pouring our sewage into our water supply. Wheeler’s Law: All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection... Except for the problem of too many layers of indirection. Wheeler also said “Compatibility means deliberately repeating other people's mistakes.”. The Wrong Road Rule of Mr. X (anonymous): No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Yourdon’s Rule of Two Feet: If you think your management doesn't know what it's doing or that your organisation turns out low-quality software crap that embarrasses you, then leave. Zawinski's Law of Software Envelopment: Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Zawinski is also responsible for “Some people, when confronted with a problem, think 'I know, I'll use regular expressions.' Now they have two problems.” He once commented about X Windows widget toolkits: “Using these toolkits is like trying to make a bookshelf out of mashed potatoes.”

  Read the article

• Selling your services when you use uncommon technologies

  - by speeder

  I took a look in Stackoverflow most popular profiles, and then I did the same in several other sites, and then I took a look in job postings in several boards, mostly out of curiosity, because I noticed this: If you work with Java, .NET or other managed languages, or you work with stuff that is popular for web development (Ruby, JavaScript, etc...) you can get lots of points on Stackoverflow, find lots of jobs and clients, find forums, friends, colleagues, etc... But how a programmer of uncommon languages (Lua, pure C, Lisp, D, ADA, Haskell, etc...) find information, sell his services, and so on? EDIT: This also applies to fields: You work with web, corporate software, database, etc... it is great... You dislike those previous 3, noone ever will hire your services...

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >