In article <················@naggum.no> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no>
wrote:
EN> [Dylan gives you] _all_ of the Lisp goodies? except macros,
EN> except `read' on source code, except `pprint', except ...
I seem to remember a posting by Scott Fahlman on comp.lang.dylan
saying that they were expecting to extend Dylan with abstract syntax
data-structures in order to give it eval-twice macros and ease
implementation of hygienic macro systems. Of course, the abstract
syntax would be based on objects, not on list structure.
The point is that you do not need to have Lisp syntax in order to have
macros, read and pprint. However, read and pprint are
trivial to implement with Lisp syntax, and might be a little more
bothersome with infix syntax. Not actually difficult, just
unpleasant.
J.
[Juliusz Chroboczek]
| The point is that you do not need to have Lisp syntax in order to have
| macros, read and pprint. However, read and pprint are trivial to
| implement with Lisp syntax, and might be a little more bothersome with
| infix syntax. Not actually difficult, just unpleasant.
Of course, some of us do remember when Dylan had both a prefix and an infix
syntax and transformation between them was supposed to be straight-forward.
And I do wonder what was actually gained by dropping the prefix syntax.
#\Erik
--
Those who do not know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> Those who do not know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
If only this were the equivalent of "Lisp is alive".
Sigh.
--
······················@ccm.hf.intel.com
Strange women, laying in ponds, distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government.
-Monty Python and the Holy Grail
In article <················@naggum.no> ····@naggum.no "Erik Naggum" writes:
> Of course, some of us do remember when Dylan had both a prefix and an infix
> syntax and transformation between them was supposed to be straight-forward.
> And I do wonder what was actually gained by dropping the prefix syntax.
A larger market, perhaps? I'd guess that Apple saw it that way,
being Apple. If your platform is one where most programmers are
currently using C++, which I suspect may be the case with the Mac,
then Dylan as it exists today may be more attractive to C++ than
Lisp dialects such as CL and Scheme.
But I've been saying this for the last couple of weeks. If you're
still wondering why Apple made the change to Dylan, perhaps you'd
better ask them. Alternately, ask CMU and Harlequin why they've
not restored the old Lisp-style syntax.
In future, I'll abbreviate this to just two words: historical
baggage. I think you'll know what I mean. ;-) I'm reminded of
the opening sequence of Trainspotting for some reason.
Choose...
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
[Erik Naggum]
| Of course, some of us do remember when Dylan had both a prefix and an infix
| syntax and transformation between them was supposed to be straight-forward.
| And I do wonder what was actually gained by dropping the prefix syntax.
[Cyber Surfer]
| A larger market, perhaps? I'd guess that Apple saw it that way, being
| Apple. If your platform is one where most programmers are currently
| using C++, which I suspect may be the case with the Mac, then Dylan as
| it exists today may be more attractive to C++ than Lisp dialects such
| as CL and Scheme.
You're not paying attention to what I'm writing. My question was about
dropping the prefix syntax, not about gaining the infix syntax, since Dylan
had both to begin with. The infix syntax should have had sufficient light
to attract the common houseflies.
Again, I wonder what was _actually_ gained by dropping the prefix syntax.
#\Erik
--
Those who do not know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
In article <················@naggum.no> ····@naggum.no "Erik Naggum" writes:
> You're not paying attention to what I'm writing. My question was about
> dropping the prefix syntax, not about gaining the infix syntax, since Dylan
> had both to begin with. The infix syntax should have had sufficient light
> to attract the common houseflies.
It could be that Apple chose a single syntax to avoid confusion.
That would be my guess. It seems like a sufficiently good reason
to me, if you think about what Apple were attempting to acheive.
> Again, I wonder what was _actually_ gained by dropping the prefix syntax.
A major source of confusion. Look at it from the point of view of
a C++ programmer new to Lisp (I think of Dylan as a dialect of Lisp).
The C++ syntax may be confusing enough itself, but that can be
explained (and justified, by some) by pointing at its history.
While you and I may appreciate the elegance of the traditional
Lisp syntax, anyone new to Lisp will _not_. Giving Dylan programmers
a choice of syntax could just make matters worse, as those of us
who prefer the traditional syntax would continue to use it.
So, you see, I _was_ paying attention. I think that you're just
failing to understand the extent of the problem. Think of non-Lisp
programmers as idiots to have to be guided gently to enlightenment.
If we push them with cattle-prods, they'll run away and play with
C++ for the next few decades. Everytime they think of Lisp or Dylan,
they'll remember how much it hurt.
So, I suspect that Apple realised this and took some action to
ensure that the more confusing syntax couldn't be used at all.
Since then, Apple have gone even further and switched to Java...
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
[Cyber Surfer]
| While you and I may appreciate the elegance of the traditional Lisp
| syntax, anyone new to Lisp will _not_.
Fact: people discover Lisp all the time, and enjoy it, play with it, use
it.
Fact: people discover your articles, and think that Lisp is dead and that
only whining losers would use Lisp if it _were_ alive.
If you want to hurt Lisp even more than you already have, go on, whine and
complain and portray Lisp as the last remnants of a class society bemoaned
only by the withering nobility.
If you want to help Lisp thrive and become what you whine and complain that
it is not, leave it to people competent and in position to do something
about it, don't destroy their chances at success by poisoning their well.
You said you were writing a Lisp to C system for your own use. Embellish
it to produce that abominable C++ code your _environment_ wants as input
from you. Nobody should be interested in the tools you use as long as the
product you deliver meets the (tacit and explicit) requirements that would
have been met if you had used the tools they think you're using. I know
this works, because this is how I moved to programming in Lisp from menial
labor in C and C++.
#\Erik
--
Those who do not know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
In article <················@naggum.no> ····@naggum.no "Erik Naggum" writes:
> | While you and I may appreciate the elegance of the traditional Lisp
> | syntax, anyone new to Lisp will _not_.
>
> Fact: people discover Lisp all the time, and enjoy it, play with it, use
> it.
I don't doubt it - I've done it myself. I've just not met many
people who've also done it. Are you saying that because a few
people discover Lisp, that's enough? I hope not.
> Fact: people discover your articles, and think that Lisp is dead and that
> only whining losers would use Lisp if it _were_ alive. > > If you want to
hurt Lisp even more than you already have, go on, whine and > complain and
portray Lisp as the last remnants of a class society bemoaned > only by the
withering nobility. > > If you want to help Lisp thrive and become what you
whine and complain that > it is not, leave it to people competent and in
position to do something > about it, don't destroy their chances at success by
I'm asking why nobody is selling a Lisp that is well known
(to non-Lisp people), and which can equal C++ at writing apps.
Apart from a few exceptions, like HotMetal Pro, it's damn hard
to find any popular, examples of apps written in Lisp. I.e. an
app for a domain with a lot of media attention, and/or a product
that has been reviewed in mainsteam computer magazines.
I'm _not_ saying that Lisp is crap. What I'm saying is that
it has a hard time competing with languages like C++. C++
specifically is a touch rival, as it's the one that the
"establishment" (MS, AT&T, etc) support and promote.
Java has shown that a language with many of the features
of Lisp can become popular enough to rival C++ in terms of
media attention. We can expect Java to be around for at
least a few more years. Many of the arguments used by the
people that I remember attacking Lisp, until last year,
would be just as "relevant" to Java. Perhaps those people
are now attackiong Java, instead of Lisp. In spite of this,
Java is gaining stronger support.
What makes Java so different from Lisp, so that it should
be so successful? It could well be the syntax. It could
simply be the association with the Web, so it'll be
interesting to see how many people use it for non-Web
apps. I think that's another issue, tho. I'm not sure
that Smalltalk created this kind of excitement, and I
remember some people being critical of the ST syntax.
Perhaps syntax is more important to people than you think?
poisoning their well. > > You said you were writing a Lisp to C system for
your own use. Embellish > it to produce that abominable C++ code your
_environment_ wants as input > from you. Nobody should be interested in the
tools you use as long as the > product you deliver meets the (tacit and
explicit) requirements that would > have been met if you had used the tools
they think you're using. I know > this works, because this is how I moved to
programming in Lisp from menial > labor in C and C++. > > #\Erik
Well, I can think of one reason why, at least in some
companies, the choie of language could be critical.
Fortunately, I don't have to worry as much about other
programmers being able to maintain my code. I just need
to the time to work on my Lisp compiler, as isn't yet
capable of assisting me with the code I'm developing.
Thanks for your encouragement. If I seem unncessarily
negative, it's because I'm always asked to write things
in C++. If I had a Lisp tool that could do what I'm asked
to write, or could help be write it, then I'd be a lot
more positive. Also, I _am_ very positive about Lisp,
as I at least consider it as an option.
Most people _don't_. Ponder on that, please. If half as
many people were eager for me - or anyone else - to write
Lisp code for them as they are for me to write C++ code,
I might be as complacent as you appear to be.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
[Cyber Surfer]
| I don't doubt it - I've done it myself. I've just not met many people
| who've also done it. Are you saying that because a few people discover
| Lisp, that's enough? I hope not.
I'm not interested in the mass market, if that answers your question. I
think mass popularity is a liability, too, but obscurity is no guaranteed
asset, either. Come to think of it, most of the things I like are obscure,
off-off-mainstream kinds of things. Except coffee.
| What I'm saying is that it has a hard time competing with languages
| like C++.
But don't you see? It _doesn't_. It _can't_. Lisp is about programmer
productivity and abstraction, C++ is about exploiting hardware. C++ is the
assembly language of an object machine. If your task is to program that
machine, fine, do it, but you don't _have_ to do it at the assembly level!
| What makes Java so different from Lisp, so that it should be so
| successful? It could well be the syntax. ... I'm not sure that
| Smalltalk created this kind of excitement, and I remember some people
| being critical of the ST syntax. Perhaps syntax is more important to
| people than you think?
Probably not more than _I_ think, since I don't buy the "semantics is more
important than syntax" argument, and have frequently argued against it. As
a friend of mine said when we discussed just this the other day, all the
relevant languages are turing complete, anyway, so they differ not in
_semantics_ per se, but in pragmatics, which is closely tied to syntax and
questions of ease of expressibility.
How could the syntax of C++, Perl, Java, etc, be so important? Well, my
take on this is that programmers don't have the needs that would warrant a
more powerful syntax. They _have_ needs that ask for tons of menial labor,
and that's when (apparent) brevity of syntax becomes so important. If you
wanted to think about complex issues, you would want readability of complex
ideas, and you would invent Lisp if it wasn't already there. If you wanted
to hack and slash your way through a jungle of murky ideas and bad design
just to get some already annoying task done, you would want a syntax that
could do it fast, and you would invent Perl if it wasn't already there.
Only a few people in each generation discover Aristotle and read his works.
This is sufficient to continue his massive influence on Western thought. I
care about the spread of the ideas in Lisp more than actual language, just
as I care about the concept of structured information more than I care
about another language with which I have spent an inordinate amount of
time: SGML, a language I dropped because its syntax is contradicting its
semantics, i.e., they communicate widely disparate ideas. If the ideas can
penetrate the programmer community and they want what Lisp can offer, it
doesn't really matter what the language looks like, as long as it is still
possible to read and write the language with standard language functions,
which is why the list form beats any alternative hands down in my eyes.
Unfortunately, programmers still think of themselves as feeders of machines
and not machines as their _partners_ in their job.
#\Erik
--
I could tell you, but then I would have to reboot you.
In article <················@naggum.no> ····@naggum.no "Erik Naggum" writes:
> | I don't doubt it - I've done it myself. I've just not met many people
> | who've also done it. Are you saying that because a few people discover
> | Lisp, that's enough? I hope not.
>
> I'm not interested in the mass market, if that answers your question. I
> think mass popularity is a liability, too, but obscurity is no guaranteed
> asset, either. Come to think of it, most of the things I like are obscure,
> off-off-mainstream kinds of things. Except coffee.
Ahh, elistism. You're the problem. Why is Lisp not more successful?
Because you're don't care about that. Stop looking at the past, and
let Lisp move on. Then perhaps more people might use it, and we'd
never need to ask if "Lisp is alive?"
> | What I'm saying is that it has a hard time competing with languages
> | like C++.
>
> But don't you see? It _doesn't_. It _can't_. Lisp is about programmer
> productivity and abstraction, C++ is about exploiting hardware. C++ is the
> assembly language of an object machine. If your task is to program that
> machine, fine, do it, but you don't _have_ to do it at the assembly level!
I know that - so what? Most programmers are using C++. That may be
why they're not using Lisp. You seem to think they have a choice.
I think they don't. Why should MS etc give them a choice?
Do you understand what I'm saying? What the hell is a programmer
supposed to do when they told to use C++? Quit? No way. Only an
elitist can do that.
> | What makes Java so different from Lisp, so that it should be so
> | successful? It could well be the syntax. ... I'm not sure that
> | Smalltalk created this kind of excitement, and I remember some people
> | being critical of the ST syntax. Perhaps syntax is more important to
> | people than you think?
>
> Probably not more than _I_ think, since I don't buy the "semantics is more
> important than syntax" argument, and have frequently argued against it. As
> a friend of mine said when we discussed just this the other day, all the
> relevant languages are turing complete, anyway, so they differ not in
> _semantics_ per se, but in pragmatics, which is closely tied to syntax and
> questions of ease of expressibility.
Fine, perhaps we agree on that point.
> How could the syntax of C++, Perl, Java, etc, be so important? Well, my
> take on this is that programmers don't have the needs that would warrant a
> more powerful syntax. They _have_ needs that ask for tons of menial labor,
> and that's when (apparent) brevity of syntax becomes so important. If you
> wanted to think about complex issues, you would want readability of complex
> ideas, and you would invent Lisp if it wasn't already there. If you wanted
> to hack and slash your way through a jungle of murky ideas and bad design
> just to get some already annoying task done, you would want a syntax that
> could do it fast, and you would invent Perl if it wasn't already there.
Yep, that's how I see it too. It's a load of crap, but that's
what people seem to want. They don't appear to want Lisp. It
could be that they don't want what Lisp currently is, but until
a radically different Lisp (Dylan?) becomes commecially available,
we won't know.
> Only a few people in each generation discover Aristotle and read his works.
> This is sufficient to continue his massive influence on Western thought. I
> care about the spread of the ideas in Lisp more than actual language, just
> as I care about the concept of structured information more than I care
> about another language with which I have spent an inordinate amount of
> time: SGML, a language I dropped because its syntax is contradicting its
> semantics, i.e., they communicate widely disparate ideas. If the ideas can
> penetrate the programmer community and they want what Lisp can offer, it
> doesn't really matter what the language looks like, as long as it is still
> possible to read and write the language with standard language functions,
> which is why the list form beats any alternative hands down in my eyes.
> Unfortunately, programmers still think of themselves as feeders of machines
> and not machines as their _partners_ in their job.
What a lot of programmers need is strong support for the platform
they're using. I've yet to find a Lisp that can compete with the
Win32 support in VC++, VB, Delphi, etc. I can't comment on Unix
develop tools, as I've never developed for Unix. Nor the Mac.
If there was a Visual Scheme, with the same kind of platform
specific support that VB has, who knows? Since such a product
has a yet to appear, it's impossible to say what effect it might
have. On the other hand, Java is here today, and in a few years,
we may see Dylan systems becoming available. There isn't yet
much, if any, platform specific support in Java (I'm thinking
of individual Java developments sustems, like Cafe, Visual J++,
etc). While we can hope that platform independance will gain
some popularity due to Java, I doubt this will have much of
an impact for some time, if it ever does,
So you don't give a shit about this. That may explain why so
few people give a shit about Lisp. _I'd_ like that to change,
so that I might one day say that I use Lisp because I'm paid
to, instead merely, "because I can". I'd like to see more apps
written in Lisp, because I don't have much hope for apps
written in C++. The more I read about C++, the more problems
it appears this language has, and the more trouble it'll be
for anyone using apps written in C++, as they get worse.
If you're fortunate enough to never worry about this stuff,
then good luck to you. I hope that your luck lasts a long time.
Meanwhile, please forgive me for worrying about it _now_, as
I have to live with it. It's not so easy for me to refuse to
code in C/C++, so I sympathise with anyone in a similar position,
and who doubts that Lisp is for them. I _know_ Lisp is for me,
but it's not necessarily the same Lisp that you want.
Ok, go stick your head in the sand and say, "This has nothing
to do with me, it's not my problem." You _are_ the problem.
I've refered to memes before, and I'll do it again. There are
Lisp memes, like yours, that hold the language back.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
I agree with Cybersurfer's contention that wider use of Lisp would be a good
thing. I'm also in a position of needing to do my work in C (luckily no
C++), on Unix boxes luckily. In my spare time I have been tinkering with
Scheme as a language in which to do molecular modeling. Scheme gives a good
tradeoff between rapid prototyping and speed.
Cybersurfer's point about tools is a good one. There isn't a GDB for Lisp or
Scheme. When I need to debug, I put in printf statements. At one point while
developing a GUI chemistry program I elected to switch from STk to MrEd to
make my program run on a wider range of hardware platforms, but there's a
wonderful little debugging feature in STk that MrEd lacks, where when an
error occurs, a window pops up with a collection of stack frames and you can
select a frame and use its variable bindings. This is a tiny fraction of what
you'd get with something like GDB; there's no way that I'm aware of to set up
breakpoints or watchpoints, or do single-stepping.
I would suspect that even elitists would benefit if Lisp/Scheme were widely
used. There would be a wider range of tools available, and there would be more
people to turn to for questions or general discussion. It would be easier to
get jobs writing Lisp, and nobody would be worrying about the language's
long-term viability.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ware <·····@world.std.com> web <http://world.std.com/~wware/>
PGP fingerprint 45A8 722C D149 10CC F0CF 48FB 93BF 7289
[Cyber Surfer]
| Ahh, elistism. You're the problem. Why is Lisp not more successful?
| Because you're don't care about that.
That's _such_ a cheap argument. I can only hope you don't mean it.
First, I don't control the Lisp world in any way, and I have no expectation
or even desire to have any impact on the mass market for _anything_. I
don't care about it, remember? I mean that _literally_.
Second, elitism is rejection of the masses. I don't reject the _masses_.
I reject the mass marketing techniques employed to affect them -- a very
big difference. I also reject the products marketed by such fraudulent
means as is used in the software world for PCs. Just as I thought "there
_must_ be a better way" for years while I was finding small ways to write
better programs in C until I could write them in Lisp and transcend it all,
"there _must_ be a better way" to affect programmers than to hit them with
the same kind of shit that sells the current generation of languages and
tools, indeed which makes them the only viable solutions in certain
settings, as you have pointed out repeatedly.
In brief: we can't win by engaging in mass marketing techniques on their
premises. We haven't in the past, and we won't in the future. We must do
something entirely different. What? If I knew, I'd already have done it.
#\Erik
--
I could tell you, but then I would have to reboot you.
Cyber Surfer wrote:
> I'm asking why nobody is selling a Lisp that is well known
> (to non-Lisp people), and which can equal C++ at writing apps.
> Apart from a few exceptions, like HotMetal Pro, it's damn hard
> to find any popular, examples of apps written in Lisp. I.e. an
> app for a domain with a lot of media attention, and/or a product
> that has been reviewed in mainsteam computer magazines.
Well, I couldn't resist. Go to Franz' home page http://www.franz.com
under "Company News" for more details...
"Super Mario 64 System Gets Raves
The new Nintendo N64 game platform was released on Sept. 29th, and
Nintendo is projecting that within nine months of launch, five million
units will have been shipped worldwide. Fueling sales of the N64 is the
incredibly successful Super Mario 64 game, which critics everywhere are
calling the best game ever. Time magazine says "Playing Super Mario 64
is like jumping inside the movie Toy Story." .... more rave reviews
omitted ...
The programming system behind Super Mario 64? Allegro CL...."
Nichimen Graphics package up a game development system (N World, which
is built in CLOS) modeled the characters in Super Mario 64.
Jim.
In article <·············@franz.com> ···@franz.com "Jim Veitch" writes:
> > I'm asking why nobody is selling a Lisp that is well known
> > (to non-Lisp people), and which can equal C++ at writing apps.
> > Apart from a few exceptions, like HotMetal Pro, it's damn hard
> > to find any popular, examples of apps written in Lisp. I.e. an
> > app for a domain with a lot of media attention, and/or a product
> > that has been reviewed in mainsteam computer magazines.
>
> Well, I couldn't resist. Go to Franz' home page http://www.franz.com
> under "Company News" for more details...
I didn't say that nobody was using ACL. Obviously _somebody_ is,
otherwise you wouldn't be in business. A point that I've made
before is: who knows this? How many people know that HotMetal was
written in Lisp? Where else might I read about software written
using ACL? I'd like to know so that I can read such magazines,
instead of the mags that endlessly push C++.
> "Super Mario 64 System Gets Raves
>
> The new Nintendo N64 game platform was released on Sept. 29th, and
> Nintendo is projecting that within nine months of launch, five million
> units will have been shipped worldwide. Fueling sales of the N64 is the
> incredibly successful Super Mario 64 game, which critics everywhere are
> calling the best game ever. Time magazine says "Playing Super Mario 64
> is like jumping inside the movie Toy Story." .... more rave reviews
> omitted ...
Did Time mention that ACL was used to develop this game?
I hope so, as I'd like Time readers to know that Lisp is
still being used to develop software.
> The programming system behind Super Mario 64? Allegro CL...."
>
> Nichimen Graphics package up a game development system (N World, which
> is built in CLOS) modeled the characters in Super Mario 64.
Excellent. How many people will know this? No matter, as I'll
be sure to tell anyone who asks. However, as I've said before,
very few people listen to me, and those that do still tell me
to develop in C/C++.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
In article <············@wildcard.demon.co.uk>,
············@wildcard.demon.co.uk wrote:
> before is: who knows this? How many people know that HotMetal was
> written in Lisp?
Only parts of it were written in Lisp.
> Did Time mention that ACL was used to develop this game?
Sure "Time" mentions for every software what it is written in?
> I hope so, as I'd like Time readers to know that Lisp is
> still being used to develop software.
Write an article.
> Excellent. How many people will know this?
More if you tell them.
> However, as I've said before, very few people listen to me,
Hmm, what can you do to change *that*?
> and those that do still tell me to develop in C/C++.
These are clearly the wrong guys.
Seriously, I'm **tired**iterating**over**this**again**.
What actually do we have got from this discussion?
Are there any actions to be taken? Will anybody write a
useful line of code or will we sit here and cry all
day how hard this cruel world is?
Writing the nth Lisp interpreter is sure no answer.
Rainer Joswig
In article <·································@news.lavielle.com>
······@lavielle.com "Rainer Joswig" writes:
> > before is: who knows this? How many people know that HotMetal was
> > written in Lisp?
>
> Only parts of it were written in Lisp.
The fact that some parts were written in Lisp should be
significant enough. VB apps tend not to be written entirely
in VB, but we can still consider the VB parts as more
significant.
> > Did Time mention that ACL was used to develop this game?
>
> Sure "Time" mentions for every software what it is written in?
I'm not sure why it might be relevant that Time mentions some
software. It only means that the software is newsworthy enough
for that publication to report it. If they didn't mention ACL,
does that mean that they don't consider ACL to be newsworthy,
or just that it isn't of interest to their readers?
I'd be more interested in how a magazine mainly read by developers
reported software that used ACL.
> > I hope so, as I'd like Time readers to know that Lisp is
> > still being used to develop software.
>
> Write an article.
Sure, but I only get asked to write about C++. Of course I'll
suggest Lisp instead, after pointing out that I'm unable to say
anything positive about C++. However, I've not been asked by
Time, nor am I likely to be. How significant this may be will
depend on relevant Time is to developers.
> > Excellent. How many people will know this?
>
> More if you tell them.
As I've said before, and I'll probably say again, who listens
to me? Not many. I've been plugging Lisp for years, but C++
people tend to give me all the crap that comp.lang.lisp readers
will be familiar with. Perhaps it's a matter of faith: mere
words won't convince these people - they "know" what works and
what doesn't.
> > However, as I've said before, very few people listen to me,
>
> Hmm, what can you do to change *that*?
I'm doing it. I'm writing a Lisp to C++ compiler, and then see
if I can use it instead of coding in C++ directly. I'll then be
sure to tell whoever I can that's what I've done.
> > and those that do still tell me to develop in C/C++.
>
> These are clearly the wrong guys.
Yeah, but who else is there? If somebody would give me a job
writing Lisp code, working from home, then I'd take it.
> Seriously, I'm **tired**iterating**over**this**again**.
How do you think that _I_ feel? All you're saying is that
you don;t have a problem, coz you can use MCL. Great. Good
luck to you. You're fortunate enough to be able to do that.
> What actually do we have got from this discussion?
What have we learned? That there are one or two elists here
insisting that there's no problem, coz they're ok.
> Are there any actions to be taken? Will anybody write a
> useful line of code or will we sit here and cry all
> day how hard this cruel world is?
Obviously we should all buy a Mac, then the world might be a
little kinder to Apple. You don't care about Windows, and I
don't expect you to. Neither of us can change the world on
our own. That's why this is worth discussing on UseNet, and
presumably why this subject has been discussed here for more
years than I've been reading UseNet. I expect it'll still be
discussed 10 years from now, tho I hope that by then, the
situation will look a little more positive. No doubt by then
the C++ situation will be so much worse that more people will
be looking at Lisp - or Dylan, or Java, or whatever.
> Writing the nth Lisp interpreter is sure no answer.
I agree. That's why I'm writing a compiler. ;-)
Thanks for your support...
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
Cyber Surfer (············@wildcard.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > Write an article.
: Sure, but I only get asked to write about C++. Of course I'll
: suggest Lisp instead, after pointing out that I'm unable to say
: anything positive about C++.
Here's a thought: select some interesting problem that has a small, clean,
easy-to-understand solution in Lisp, but would be a horrible mess in C++.
Offer (to whomever it is that asks you to write articles) to write about
that topic, without specifying what language you'll use. Write the article
with both the Lisp listing and the C++ listing. Most people will remain
addicted to C++ but a few careful readers will notice that the Lisp listing
is smaller and easier to follow.
For extra credit: arrange some means to collect information back from the
readers, and find out what the typical reaction was. Find out what people
have in mind as legitimate reasons to avoid Lisp. Write a second article,
taking into account what you learned from the first. (You can imagine doing
several iterations of this, obviously; if it were actually done, it might do
a lot to grow the Lisp-using population.)
For super-double-bonus extra credit: write a Lisp program to do all this
for you.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ware <·····@world.std.com> web <http://world.std.com/~wware/>
PGP fingerprint 45A8 722C D149 10CC F0CF 48FB 93BF 7289
[Cyber Surfer]
| In fact, he lost [...] all MS advertising last year, by writing an
| editorial about editorial independance and attempts to comprimise it by
| MS.
has this been documented? that is, did Microsoft attempt to compromise his
editorial independence, and, did they, upon his refusal to be compromised,
drop all advertising?
not that I will ever buy or use a Microsoft product anyway, but I'd like to
have my prejudices and my beliefs in the Evil among us confirmed, once in a
rare while.
#\Erik
--
I could tell you, but then I would have to reboot you.
In article <················@naggum.no> ····@naggum.no "Erik Naggum" writes:
> [Cyber Surfer]
>
> | In fact, he lost [...] all MS advertising last year, by writing an
> | editorial about editorial independance and attempts to comprimise it by
> | MS.
>
> has this been documented? that is, did Microsoft attempt to compromise his
> editorial independence, and, did they, upon his refusal to be compromised,
> drop all advertising?
I've checked the details, and it was actually _two_ years ago. He
began with the words, "I was recently invited to serve as a member
of Microsoft's Visual C++ development team. I didn't take the job,
but some of my colleagues did. In the months to come, you can look
forward to reading their reviews of the product they helped create."
This was reported in the Sept '94 issue of Windows Tech Journal,
and was followed up in the editorials for the '95 and '96 issue.
The '96 editorial included a list of suggestions that any vendor
could read and implement. I bet that a few of his ideas would be
familiar to one or two Lisp hackers!
> not that I will ever buy or use a Microsoft product anyway, but I'd like to
> have my prejudices and my beliefs in the Evil among us confirmed, once in a
> rare while.
You can check the details with the man himself, by emailing him at
········@compuserve.com, or in section 9 of the Software Development
forum (SDFORUM) on CompuServe.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
In article <············@wildcard.demon.co.uk>,
············@wildcard.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I'd be more interested in how a magazine mainly read by developers
> reported software that used ACL.
Sure.
> I'm doing it. I'm writing a Lisp to C++ compiler, and then see
> if I can use it instead of coding in C++ directly. I'll then be
> sure to tell whoever I can that's what I've done.
Better use some of the existing Lisp systems and get
it working. Add multithreading. Write a free version
of CLIM. Port CL-HTTP. Add DLL support. Whatever.
Find some guys who will help you.
But don't develop your own Common Lisp.
Please don't.
> How do you think that _I_ feel? All you're saying is that
> you don;t have a problem, coz you can use MCL. Great.
Genera works great for me, too. So would LispWorks
or Allegro CL.
> What have we learned? That there are one or two elists here
> insisting that there's no problem, coz they're ok.
Or one guy is masturbating over why he can't use Lisp,
nobody gives him a job to do in Lisp, Lisp doesn't
fit on a floppy, etc.
> Obviously we should all buy a Mac,
That MCL still exists on the Mac did not come for free.
It is the work of some very dedicated developers
(now Digitool) and fantastic support by the users
(who even provided financial support).
People saved it from being dumped by Apple.
The discussion still lacks some
constructivism. I would like
to see a paper where you/we describe
what you/we see as status of Lisp on the PC.
Let's list the features of various Lisps
compare these to the features needed by
some various development task on a PC.
Then we have sets of features and can
match that against what is state of the art.
Next phase would be to determine can or
can we not use Lisp for these tasks.
If not why? What is needed for
Lisp to be useful? What would be the costs
to implement them. Would vendors be
able to support that? If not can
we have a free Lisp that does
support a wide range of the needs
of a PC/Windows developer.
Would there be enough supporters
for such a project. How to get in
contact, etc.
We could *talk* forever. But until somebody
starts an *action* (for whatever reason),
nothing will happen. So guys if you are unhappy
with the state of Lisp on the PC, change it!
Trying to develop Common Lisp on your own
in your spare time will likely fail, given
that it takes more than a man year
for a usable Common Lisp implementation.
Greetings,
Rainer Joswig
In article <············@wildcard.demon.co.uk>,
············@wildcard.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Same with me. I'm not that fussy - so long as I can afford it.
> I may have to wait some time before anybody offers to buy me a
> Lisp system.
Haha.
> Are you denying that you're an elitist?
Why? Because I'm using a Mac, Lisp, MCL, Computers?
> If you think that asking how we can make Lisp more popular
> as a development tool isn't constructive enough, then fair
> enough.
Yeah, complaining won't change a bit.
In article <·············@franz.com>, ···@franz.com wrote:
Hi Jim,
> Well, I couldn't resist. Go to Franz' home page http://www.franz.com
> under "Company News" for more details...
>
don't forget to mention your story about "Crash Bandicoot".
Is saw the game at the latest CeBIT Home in Hannover/Germany
running on a Sony Playstation.
The game looked very, very, very cool.
Check out the Franz web site for the story, guys.
Greetings,
Rainer Joswig
In article <················@naggum.no>, ····@naggum.no says...
> Embellish
>it to produce that abominable C++ code your _environment_ wants as input
>from you. Nobody should be interested in the tools you use as long as the
>product you deliver meets the (tacit and explicit) requirements that would
>have been met if you had used the tools they think you're using. I know
>this works, because this is how I moved to programming in Lisp from menial
>labor in C and C++.
It isn't allways that easy. I work for a state government agency. I use the
product approved, or I give up health insurance, retirement, & etc for the
privilage of programming in what I prefer. Think about it: Not every body works
under the same conditions and as a result what works in theory & practice may
not work legally. Sorry if that disturbs you ...
>#\Erik
>--
>Those who do not know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
William Barnett-Lewis
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
> [Cyber Surfer]
>
> | While you and I may appreciate the elegance of the traditional Lisp
> | syntax, anyone new to Lisp will _not_.
>
> Fact: people discover Lisp all the time, and enjoy it, play with it, use
> it.
>
> Fact: people discover your articles, and think that Lisp is dead and that
> only whining losers would use Lisp if it _were_ alive.
>
I think the biggest indication that Lisp is seems dead is that the
biggest Lisp repository, CMU Lisp Archives, hasn't had anything added
to it in almost a year, according to the What's New list. This
despite the fact the several versions of CLISP have come and gone, gcl
is at 2.2, there is a working version of CMUCL for FreeBSD and Linux
being developed, and ILOG Talk is now freely available for Linux.
There are probably many other things going on with Scheme and Dylan,
etc., but no one seems to be updating CMU Archives.
Having things change on the archive would make Lisp appear alive and
well. As it is, it looks rather dead.
Ray
[Raymond Toy]
| Having things change on the archive would make Lisp appear alive and
| well. As it is, it looks rather dead.
I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but I ran the SGML Repository at the
University of Oslo for nearly six years, five of which with a significant
impact in my own wallet, and I have another take on repositories going
stale, and I can sum it up in one word: abuse. Provide something for free,
and certain classes of users (let's call them "freshmen at life in general"
and "recently graduated MBAs") will utterly fail to appreciate the nature
and needs of a free resource. Both will "require" some level of service,
and both will feel free to steal whatever is there and re-market it.
I have come to believe that free net resources exist as long as there is
academic interest in a subject. When the interest reaches commercially
viable levels, (1) people won't put commercially viable things there when
they could have sold it, and (2) those who run them aren't likely to
provide commercial enterprises with free marketing, anyway.
In any case, if the maintenance of a respository of any useful size is not
well-funded, it requires _very_ dedicated people. Very dedicated people
who create something that is recognized to be universally useful will get
significantly de-motivated when they seek funding from the user community
and they get turned down.
This may not reflect the fate of the CMU Lisp Repository, but the reason a
repository goes stale may in fact be _increased_ interest, not reduced.
#\Erik
--
Those who do not know Lisp are doomed to reimplement it.
In article <················@naggum.no> ····@naggum.no "Erik Naggum" writes:
> In any case, if the maintenance of a respository of any useful size is not
> well-funded, it requires _very_ dedicated people. Very dedicated people
> who create something that is recognized to be universally useful will get
> significantly de-motivated when they seek funding from the user community
> and they get turned down.
My bet is that this is the reason for the Repository becoming
"stale". It's not a free lunch. I got my "copy" on CD-ROM, and
some of the money made from selling it supports the people at
CMU who maintain the Repository. So, buying more copies may
help keep the Respository alive.
> This may not reflect the fate of the CMU Lisp Repository, but the reason a
> repository goes stale may in fact be _increased_ interest, not reduced.
I'm not even sure that the Repository accurately reflects the
degree to which Lisp is "alive". Not everybody can find what
they need in there, but the numbers of people using it each
year (FTP connections. CD-ROM purchases) reflect only the number
of people using the Repository itself. This could easily just
be a sebset of the people using Lisp today.
I'd say that it's just one metric. There are others, and some
may be of more value than others. Which ones are of greater
value may well vary, depending on how you use Lisp, and where.
For examplle, it looks to me as if Lisp is very popular in
education, amoung other places, but if you were to only look
at the sales of commercial Lisps, you might miss this segment
of the Lisp community. Similarly, if you only look at the
number of users of the Repository, you might miss some of the
commercial users.
We should also consider the Lisp users who aren't yet aware
of the Repository. Some people won't have access to the Internet,
and may be unaware of the CD-ROM distribution. I know I'm
being pedantic, but unless we know how many people _could_
be using the Reposiroty, but who choose not to, the number of
people who do use it means very little. We also need to know
why they don't use it.
So, I agree with you, but for different reasons. ;-)
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> You can never browse enough
Future generations are relying on us
It's a world we've made - Incubus
We're living on a knife edge, looking for the ground -- Hawkwind
In article <··············@rtp.ericsson.se>, Raymond Toy
<···@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote:
> I think the biggest indication that Lisp is seems dead is that the
> biggest Lisp repository, CMU Lisp Archives, hasn't had anything added
> to it in almost a year, according to the What's New list. This
> despite the fact the several versions of CLISP have come and gone, gcl
> is at 2.2, there is a working version of CMUCL for FreeBSD and Linux
> being developed, and ILOG Talk is now freely available for Linux.
> There are probably many other things going on with Scheme and Dylan,
> etc., but no one seems to be updating CMU Archives.
>
> Having things change on the archive would make Lisp appear alive and
> well. As it is, it looks rather dead.
Same is true for the Lisp FAQ.
I don't know the exact situation but it could be that
some support from people would be needed. Contribution
is always welcome.
The state of Lisp is really much better than the perceiption
by some people.
Rainer Joswig