>>: Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
>> You would be surprised. *nix in the guise of Linux and *BSD
>> is well and alive these days, especially among the young'n's.
>> Now a Forth or a Lisp machine joke would be a tad more difficult to
>> contextize.
> Spike Jones wrote:
> ((((Hey!))) ((((((((I remember Lisp!)))))))))))))))
> (((((Is anyone still using it?)))))
(and (buy I (lisp-machine) :tense 'past :time 'just)
(love I it :manner '(very much)))
#| http://fare.tunes.org/LispM.html |#
#\FORTH
\ LISP is a reflective language thanks to (reader) macros
IT ROCKS BECAUSE I FORTH LOVE
\ or did that "machine" factor to Forth ?
\ Well, I wish those PSC 1000 or i21 (or i32) had better success...
\ http://www.ultratechnology.com/
LISP
; Forth is reflective, too, thanks to input control
; actually, it can be argued that FORTH and LISP are the only
; standard languages that are really Turing-equivalent,
; for some strict formal notion of Turing-equivalence.
(quit)
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
[ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ]
We know how prefix is LISP syntax, FORTH syntax postfix while the syntax
is braindeadfix in C; well, the syntax of XML is a hardcorepornfix syntax:
it does it all the ways at the same time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:06 MDT