In article <·················@news.netnitco.net>,
········@mail.icongrp.com wrote:
>are there any decent books on lisp programing?
There are a number of annotated bibliographies that you should be able to
find with a web search.
Here are two with which I'm familiar:
http://www.teleport.com/~dlamkins/computer-books.html
http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/table/learn.htm
--
David B. Lamkins <http://www.teleport.com/~dlamkins/>
········@mail.icongrp.com writes:
> are there any decent books on lisp programing?
Within the Lisp community, we have seen a great deal of self
restraint. The lack of PGM-G, PGM-PG, PGM-PG-13, PGM-R, and PGM-NC-17
ratings should not leave you with the queasy feeling that you might
open a book and see some sort of shocking or indecent coding style,
but rather with the calm sense that the entire range of Lisp books,
while varying in depth, is age-appropriate for fairly young children.
(Do watch out for examples in discussions of the class system of an
elephant who sometimes is missing or has additional legs, based on what
he's inheriting from. Lisp may not be appropriate for children in the
still in `Bambi' years; keep them confined to Logo until that time.)
I know this is confusing because C books tend to be universally in
need of PGM-NC-17 ratings based on their coding style. It's probably
the extreme uniformity of indecent programming style that causes them
not to rate books in that industry. Or maybe they've just resigned
themselves to everyone giving them a lot of static about their
language.
Lisp books are best compared not on whether they are "decent" but on
what their level of "depth" or "coverage" is, usually indicated by a
pair of balanced parens. (This is good, too, because in a ratings
system you want lots of whatever the ratings character is to feel good
about yourself, and when working with balanced parens you earn them
twice as fast and feel that much better about your book.) The less
good books receive a rating of (), meaning devoid of content. Books
that go into more depth get correspondingly better ratings, such as
(()), ((())).
A tip to present and future reviewers (i.e., those who have only so
far thunk about it): In this industry we do NOT deal in half-ratings
points, such as "(" or ")", so just get that notion out of your head
right now.
Anyway, the Association of Lisp Users (ALU) web site had a big
list. http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/ The consensus seems to be
that books by Graham and Norvig deserve a (((()))) rating, and are
well worth evaluating. (*)
Happy reading.
--Kent
(equal (*)
Evaluate the books, not the ratings, please. And if you don't
understand the need for this warning, don't worry about it.
It's an in-joke.)
Kent M Pitman wrote in message ...
>Anyway, the Association of Lisp Users (ALU) web site had a big
>list. http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/ The consensus seems to be
>that books by Graham and Norvig deserve a (((()))) rating, and are
>well worth evaluating. (*)
Can we quote you on that?
"Jrm" <········@eval-apply.com> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote in message ...
> >Anyway, the Association of Lisp Users (ALU) web site had a big
> >list. http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/ The consensus seems to be
> >that books by Graham and Norvig deserve a (((()))) rating, and are
> >well worth evaluating. (*)
>
> Can we quote you on that?
A long time ago, someone in the Lisp industry told me it was poor form
quote people; it suggests that they lack value. But I don't want to
get bound up into that argument, so let's just achieve closure by
agreeing that the point is that you can feel free to point people to
my earlier pointer, which works as a reference for certain reference
works that are particularly on point in their pointers about pointer
references. Did you copy all that?
Now you've done it. I have to quote this :)
Gavin E. Gleason
> A long time ago, someone in the Lisp industry told me it was poor form
> quote people; it suggests that they lack value. But I don't want to
> get bound up into that argument, so let's just achieve closure by
> agreeing that the point is that you can feel free to point people to
> my earlier pointer, which works as a reference for certain reference
> works that are particularly on point in their pointers about pointer
> references. Did you copy all that?
>A long time ago, someone in the Lisp industry told me it was poor form
>quote people; it suggests that they lack value. But I don't want to
>get bound up into that argument, so let's just achieve closure by
>agreeing that the point is that you can feel free to point people to
>my earlier pointer, which works as a reference for certain reference
>works that are particularly on point in their pointers about pointer
>references. Did you copy all that?
Take my advice, I for one have always believed
in share and share alike. I'm constant on that. If I were to
modify my argument, however slightly, those that depend on me
(and I get calls all the time, and I return most of them),
might accuse me of corruption. I may have no class, but
at least my values haven't changed.
"Jrm" <········@eval-apply.com> writes:
> >A long time ago, someone in the Lisp industry told me it was poor form
> >quote people; it suggests that they lack value. But I don't want to
> >get bound up into that argument, so let's just achieve closure by
> >agreeing that the point is that you can feel free to point people to
> >my earlier pointer, which works as a reference for certain reference
> >works that are particularly on point in their pointers about pointer
> >references. Did you copy all that?
>
shallowly.
--
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 23, fax. +39 - (0)6 - 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> A long time ago, someone in the Lisp industry told me it was poor form
> quote people; it suggests that they lack value. But I don't want to
> get bound up into that argument, so let's just achieve closure by
> agreeing that the point is that you can feel free to point people to
> my earlier pointer, which works as a reference for certain reference
> works that are particularly on point in their pointers about pointer
> references. Did you copy all that?
I tried to copy all that, but discovered that there was no generic
function for copying. :)
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute ···@isi.edu
From: Reini Urban
Subject: Re: [Noise] Re: books on lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <35c26ce8.9157637@judy>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
>A long time ago, someone in the Lisp industry told me it was poor form
>quote people; it suggests that they lack value. But I don't want to
>get bound up into that argument, so let's just achieve closure by
>agreeing that the point is that you can feel free to point people to
>my earlier pointer, which works as a reference for certain reference
>works that are particularly on point in their pointers about pointer
>references. Did you copy all that?
too much c++ in the last time?
:)