Hey there...
I am new to Lisp...just downloaded Franz's latest trial version. I have
been doing Smalltalk for about 4 years and wanted to see what Lisp has to
offer. Can anyone recommend one book over another?
Many thanks.
Chris
"Chris Harrington" <········@swbell.net> writes:
> Hey there...
>
> I am new to Lisp...just downloaded Franz's latest trial version. I have
> been doing Smalltalk for about 4 years and wanted to see what Lisp has to
> offer. Can anyone recommend one book over another?
paul graham _ansi common lisp_
if i could only get one book, this would be it.
peter norvig _paradigms of artificial intelligence_
this has lots of good examples. it's very useful even if you don't
care about AI (like me).
paul graham _on lisp_
describes lisp macros. i didn't fully understand it until i read his
_ansi common lisp_ but it's pretty high on my list.
also be sure to check out the on-line common-lisp hyper-spec at
<URL:http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/>
i think is more good stuff at
<URL:http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/>
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[········@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
"Chris Harrington" <········@swbell.net> wrote in message
························@nnrp2.sbc.net...
> Hey there...
>
> I am new to Lisp...just downloaded Franz's latest trial version. I have
> been doing Smalltalk for about 4 years and wanted to see what Lisp has to
> offer. Can anyone recommend one book over another?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Chris
Paul Graham's "On Lisp" is a good choice, but an even better one might be
"The Structure And Interpretation Of Computer Programs." SICP uses Scheme
rather than CLOS, which may affect your choice - Scheme has a smaller
standard library, but a wider choice of free implementations, and some extra
features like continuations.
Jonathan
Jonathan Coupe wrote:
>
> "Chris Harrington" <········@swbell.net> wrote in message
> ························@nnrp2.sbc.net...
>> Hey there...
>>
>> I am new to Lisp...just downloaded Franz's latest trial version. I have
>> been doing Smalltalk for about 4 years and wanted to see what Lisp has to
>> offer. Can anyone recommend one book over another?
>>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Paul Graham's "On Lisp" is a good choice, but an even better one might be
> "The Structure And Interpretation Of Computer Programs." SICP uses Scheme
> rather than CLOS, which may affect your choice - Scheme has a smaller
> standard library, but a wider choice of free implementations, and some
> extra features like continuations.
Why is everyone that wants to learn Lisp always pushed to learn Scheme????
Perhaps he will get his work done?
Perhaps he _wants_ OOP?
Perhaps he is _not_ so dull like you think of him?
Jochen
--
http://www.dataheaven.de
In article <··············@ID-22205.news.dfncis.de>, Jochen Schmidt
<···@dataheaven.de> wrote:
> Jonathan Coupe wrote:
>
> >
> > "Chris Harrington" <········@swbell.net> wrote in message
> > ························@nnrp2.sbc.net...
> >> Hey there...
> >>
> >> I am new to Lisp...just downloaded Franz's latest trial version. I have
> >> been doing Smalltalk for about 4 years and wanted to see what Lisp has to
> >> offer. Can anyone recommend one book over another?
> >>
> >> Many thanks.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
> > Paul Graham's "On Lisp" is a good choice, but an even better one might be
> > "The Structure And Interpretation Of Computer Programs." SICP uses Scheme
> > rather than CLOS, which may affect your choice - Scheme has a smaller
> > standard library, but a wider choice of free implementations, and some
> > extra features like continuations.
>
> Why is everyone that wants to learn Lisp always pushed to learn Scheme????
> Perhaps he will get his work done?
> Perhaps he _wants_ OOP?
> Perhaps he is _not_ so dull like you think of him?
Jochen is right. There are some good books and tutorials
for learning Common Lisp. Some Lisp implementations
are very good for learning Lisp and Programming
in general (MCL, LispWorks, ACL for Windows, Corman CL).
With a little bit more effort (because they don't have an
integrated development environment) CLisp and CMUCL
are other excellent (and "free") options.
Good "offline" books for learning Lisp are Winston/Horn's "Lisp"
(3rd Edition) and Paul Graham's "ANSI Common Lisp".
Here is the canonical starting place for learning Lisp:
http://www.lisp.org/table/learn.htm
Actually, if you know more material (and there is a lot more)
let the maintainers of www.lisp.org know, they sure will be
happy to include the information.
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> Why is everyone that wants to learn Lisp always pushed to learn Scheme????
> Perhaps he will get his work done?
> Perhaps he _wants_ OOP?
> Perhaps he is _not_ so dull like you think of him?
[Chiming in a little late:]
Perhaps the best answer is to learn both. As well as a lot of other
languages: Objective Caml, Forth, Icon, Smalltalk, Prolog, Haskell,
etc. It just gets easier the more of them you learn. None of them
are perfect. All of them have something to teach you. Some of them
may fit well with how *you* work; some may not.
--
T. Kurt Bond, ···@tkb.mpl.com
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
Erik> I have read much Lisp code written under the influence (of
Erik> Scheme) and it is just as bad as C++ code written by people
Erik> who never grew out of C. It is really sad. Scheme as your
Erik> first or even early language is a handicap that it may take
Erik> many years of therapy and caring friends to undo.
I doubt Mr. Bond (grin) is using a definition of "learn" that means
"only pick up enough of the syntax to write Hello World in FUBOL"
because he states "All of them have something to teach you."
I think that, in general, learning a language (human or computer) has
more to do with idiom than syntax. I hope that most of us realize
that.
--
"His power lies apparently in his ability to choose incompetent
enemies." - Crow T. Robot, MST3K, "Prince of Space"
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Scheme should be deprecated. Scheme advocates should just go away.
> Scheme isn't even a Lisp child, it's an Algol bastard with parentheses.
To me, the first of those two sentences is at odds with the second.
It seems to me the whole point of having Scheme is to give advocates
of that school of thought a place to cluster such that they are not
creating havoc for the Lisp community. Were Scheme to go away, if
that was even meaningful, they might be back in the Lisp community
meddling in ways that were conceptually at odds with what Lisp devotees
want.
In the large (socially, I mean, not technically), I think language
design is somewhat an exercise in data clustering. It's important to
find out the places where there is enough agreement that it's worth
creating a common core around which conceptually near neighbors can
rally. Scheme is such a cluster point, I think. Lisp is built around
a different cluster of preferences and is appropriate to a different
group of people.
It was explicitly part of the design of Scheme to pattern itself after
Algol, to the point that if you look at the Scheme report (particularly
up to R^3RS (since it's drifted in subtle ways in the last two drafts)
you'll see the typography, layout, fonting, and even some of the wording
is chosen to fairly exactly mirror the corresponding items in the Algol 60
report. Now whether that "honor" makes it a bastardization, I can't say.
I think it's really up to a language's own constituent base to say
whether it's happy with the language. If the community that Scheme
attracts continues to be happy with Scheme, the language is a success.
If the community of Common Lisp advocates goes on happy with CL, then
it is a success. These languages, like political parties, are
platforms for the advocacy of ideas important to the party members.
It isn't for other parties to say whether they are on the right track
or not. Just thank goodness those other party members aren't (usually)
voting in your party's primary...
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
(snip)
> Scheme should be deprecated. Scheme advocates should just go away.
> Scheme isn't even a Lisp child, it's an Algol bastard with parentheses.
As you might be aware, statements like these will *attract* Scheme
advocates. In droves. With pitchforks in hand.
(snip)
> Let's tell people to study the _real_ Lisp, not some silly bastard toy
> language that claims to have only one namespace, has no real symbols and
> no special bindings or anything else real programmers need in real life.
(hitler) ; Scheme or Common Lisp, it should end this thread
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then
beat you with experience (Scott Adams)