| rahul | there's no standard for simula |
| v0|d | who runs at 2 TFlops? i though electron would not go over 8ghz. |
| rahul | v0|d: electrons aren't what powers electrical circuits. |
| _deepfire | EULAChiatDay, a synonym for "less effect for more resources wasted"? |
| EULAChiatDay | _deepfire: RSS XML KFC MICHAEL-JACKSON |
| dsteuber | Hmmm. 10% of a huge file is still pretty big. |
| rahul | v0|d: photons do, electrons merely provide the electrical charge that gets moved |
| EULAChiatDay | _deepfire: theres no such thing...its all about... the people in the end |
| dsteuber | I don't believe in photons I can't see. |
| gigamonkey | Anyone here sitting at a non-SLIME REPL? |
| tcr | phao: http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/doc_kay_oop_en |
| dsteuber | I sometimes go into CLisp's command line. But not right now. |
| rahul | phao: although lisp had the other OOP aspects since the 50s |
| gigamonkey | I'm wondering if say Lispworks or Allegro give you any indication that you've typed return in the middle of an expression the way SLIME does. |
| tcr | gigamonkey: Note that SLIME does only so if the sexp is not correctly balanced. |
| EULAChiatDay | gigamonkey: Both IDEs suck so much |
| gigamonkey | tcr: That's what I mean by "in the middle". But I take your point--if you've already got a full expression and you hit return in the middle it sends it. Which I sometime find annoying. |
| rahul | I think C-RET will insert a literal newline or some modifier... |
| tcr | rahul: Close, C-j it is. |
| dsteuber | I hate when C-c C-c is ignored. |
| phao | rahul: so 1959.. correct? |
| dsteuber | Or maybe my lack of system memory is bogging things down |
| rahul | phao: basically |
| EULAChiatDay | programming is hard. i am stupid. i wish i were a well paid actor. waaaaa mum, dad i hate you! |
| rahul | phao: at least, lisp functions were polymorphic back then. there were no macros to separate the different morphs from each other |
| phao | ok |
| dsteuber | That was the problem. Big long delay. |
| rahul | phao: the theoretical underpinnings were there in the language to do OOP, it just required someone to come up with the paradigm to find out a good syntax for expressing such programs |
| phao | hmm so, since lisp was made it can 'suport' oop? |
| rahul | I guess the introudction of defstruct was essential |
| antifuchs | I say it was typecase (: |
| rahul | not sure when that happened |
| antifuchs | thanks for the texinfoified iterate manual, loliveira! |
| rahul | antifuchs: that gives you polymorphism, but not encapsulation (with strong types) or inheritance |
| antifuchs | rahul: heh. in brucio mode, I'd argue that this is only one macro away (: |