I want to learn LISP, may you tell me where can i start, which
manuals or FAQs are available in the Net.
Thanks
--
############################################### No fue Hari Seldon,
# # ni R. Daneel Olivaw,
# Lathae ===> Jaime Romanini C. # fue Trevize.
# # ·······@netup.cl
############################################### ········@inf.utfsm.cl
········@kenos.inf.utfsm.cl (Jaime Romanini C.) writes:
> I want to learn LISP, may you tell me where can i start, which
> manuals or FAQs are available in the Net.
The Association of Lisp Users (ALU) has a web page at
http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/
which is rich with information about resources of all kinds,
including FAQs, code repositories, mailing lists, and names of
available books.
One important online resource is the Common Lisp HyperSpec(TM)
which is available free to browse or download at
http://www.harlequin.com/books/education/HyperSpec/
This is a webbed document which effectively documents all of
ANSI Common Lisp.
A number of companies have free introductory versions of their
products available for beginning users. You can get a full list
from the ALU web page. For example, my company Harlequin, has a
free "Personal Edition" of its LispWorks For Windows product
available. See http://www.harlequin.com/products/ads/lisp/
for information about how to download that.
This newsgroup is a good resource for help when you run
into problems. There are a number of very interesting, skilled,
helpful, and (surprisingly for a newsgroup) friendly people who
regularly contribute.
Ojala' que podra' encontrar todo que necesita sin problema.
Si no, me puede mandar e-mail. Bienvenido a la comunidad de Lisp!
--Kent
········@kenos.inf.utfsm.cl (Jaime Romanini C.) writes:
> I want to learn LISP, may you tell me where can i start, which
> manuals or FAQs are available in the Net.
This doesn't really answer Jaime's question, but is more of a
followup question:
Is Emacs-Lisp considered a reasonable way to "learn Lisp"? I know
that Emacs-Lisp is a different dialect to Common Lisp, but do you
serious Lispers consider it as "reasonable"?
--
Viktor Haag The PEER Group, Inc.
·············@peergroup.com Technical Writer
"Unlike serial-killer profiling, writing is a
lonely and depressing profession ..." Jose Chung
* Viktor Haag <······@peergroup.com>
| Is Emacs-Lisp considered a reasonable way to "learn Lisp"? I know that
| Emacs-Lisp is a different dialect to Common Lisp, but do you serious
| Lispers consider it as "reasonable"?
I have worked intimately with Emacs since 1993 and fixed a lot of bugs
and tried very hard to keep Emacs Lisp reasonable. by 1996, I gave up
that goal, but not the usefulness of Emacs, and I have since then worked
on a private version of Emacs that has tracked the development version of
Emacs sans MULE and other bad design decisions. unsurprisingly, almost
all the bugs in recent development have been in the areas I decided were
broken at the core, but worse, yet, the fixes made are even worse than
what they tried to fix.
Emacs Lisp for Emacs 19 is still reasonable (the latest version being
19.34). Emacs Lisp for Emacs 20 is no longer reasonable. (e.g., the
lack of a character type, streams, filters, etc, makes MULE amazingly
stupidly designed, and lots of other advanced features are incredibly
kludgey because the language is no longer able to support further
development.)
XEmacs Lisp appears to be closer to Common Lisp. I have previously
thought XEmacs was worse than Emacs in the "if we haven't reinvented it,
it can't be any good" department, but it appears that XEmacs will not
follow Emacs over to Guile, although I think XEmacs Lisp has more of a
Scheme nature than Emacs Lisp with its myriads of accessors and other
one-trick ponies.
all in all, I think you should learn Emacs Lisp because it is so useful
for a wide range of tasks, but depressingly little in Emacs Lisp is
really smart, so you should at least consider implementing most of the
stuff yourself in Common Lisp.
#:Erik