"mgkiourt" <········@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:<············@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr>...
> What kind of applications does Lisp fit for?
Just about everything I have needed so far, but don't waste it on
"Hello World" applications:)
If you have a Windows system you can download this app written in LWW.
Simple yet effective app. Not a huge application by any means, but
sufficient to keep a programmer occupied for a few months over a couple of
years. This application was effectively developed from scratch and posted
as shareware in about 6 weeks. Not a full time effort and it was my first
experience in delivering a Lisp and LWW application. Lots of time looking
at manuals, figuring out how to do things in Lisp, first time using CAPI,...
Probably rewrote the thing 3 times.
http://www.cadvision.com/humeniuw/runnerslogtrial1.40.exe
Wade
"mgkiourt" <········@otenet.gr> wrote in message
·················@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> What kind of applications does Lisp fit for?
>
>
mgkiourt wrote:
>
> What kind of applications does Lisp fit for?
Personally, I think lisp is great for ANY application where machine
resources are not too small. Because you can extend the semantics and
syntax of lisp through macros and its metaobject protocol, you can
create a language that fits your problem nicely. You can end up with a
much smaller set of code that is easier to maintain and extend.
The only place where I think lisp code *looks* clumsy is in math
notation. It is tricky to make numerical algorithms look "normal" (for
me, anyway) because we are accustomed to reading y = 3 * x^2 rather than
(setq y (* 3 (square x))), but I'm guessing that a lot of people have
found ways to get around that.
Eric
Eric Moss <········@alltel.net> writes:
> mgkiourt wrote:
> >
> > What kind of applications does Lisp fit for?
>
> Personally, I think lisp is great for ANY application where machine
> resources are not too small. Because you can extend the semantics and
> syntax of lisp through macros and its metaobject protocol, you can
> create a language that fits your problem nicely. You can end up with a
> much smaller set of code that is easier to maintain and extend.
>
> The only place where I think lisp code *looks* clumsy is in math
> notation. It is tricky to make numerical algorithms look "normal" (for
> me, anyway) because we are accustomed to reading y = 3 * x^2 rather than
> (setq y (* 3 (square x))), but I'm guessing that a lot of people have
> found ways to get around that.
Sure.
#I(y = 3 * x^2)
The infix package is available in the AI.Repository (and in other
places as well).
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> Eric Moss <········@alltel.net> writes:
> >
> > The only place where I think lisp code *looks* clumsy is in math
> > notation. It is tricky to make numerical algorithms look "normal" (for
> > me, anyway) because we are accustomed to reading y = 3 * x^2 rather than
> > (setq y (* 3 (square x))), but I'm guessing that a lot of people have
> > found ways to get around that.
>
> Sure.
>
> #I(y = 3 * x^2)
>
> The infix package is available in the AI.Repository (and in other
> places as well).
Very cool. See? I told you people were already working on it. ;)
Eric