From: Dave Bakhash
Subject: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <c29fzumv8r9.fsf@no-knife.mit.edu>
Hi,
I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's International
Lisp Conference. But for the people who were unable to make it there
this year, I'd like to say a few things about it, in the hopes that
people will find one another, and good things will result. I don't
intend for people to follow up, or for most people to care to read what
I have to say...but figured that I'd have wanted to get an idea of what
someone else had come back from the conference with, had I not been able
to make it there. This was my first such conference in CL.
There's a lot to say, so first off, I'll start by saying that it was
very well organized. The organizers did an incredible job, keeping it
timely and moving, yet relaxed and comfortable. Franz had several
people working around-the-clock keeping everything running smoothly, as
well as Raymond and the other folks who provided sponsorship and
support.
For me, it was amazing to finally meet people I've been talking to
directly or indirectly for years. Brigitte Bovy of Xanalys was
especially nice to meet in person, after years of knowing each other
over the phone.
There were some incredible speakers. I particularly enjoyed hearing
what RMS had to say, and despite not preparing anything for the talk, he
told an amazing story, shared a lot of insight, and did so with a warm
sincerity.
I spoke to RMS briefly about using CL instead of Guile (Scheme) as the
next extension language for GNU Emacs, and all he really had to say
about it was that it was "too big". On that note, I'll mention ECL...
ECL was presented by a really cool Spanish guy, a physicist now living
in Germany named Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll (excuse me if I got the
spelling wrong). He presented ECL, a continuation of KCL, which is an
incredible project which has nearly a full ANSI CL working as a library
(about a meg), that you can call from C, and which compiles CL->C, and
readable C at that. It also provides a nice C calling interface to CL
functions, and gives you a fully-functional prompt with a REPL. This
work has already been ported across many Unixes (including Mac OS X) and
Win32 via Cygwin. I find this to be an excellent direction for a Lisp
implementation, especially as most of CL can be done with portable ANSI
C, and then leverage modern C compilers. Benchmarks supposedly put
compiled ECL code ahead of CLISP, making it a better bet. For those
interested, it's LGPL'd, and you should check it out. I'm looking into
putting some money together to fund a effort for ECL in GNU Emacs in
place of Guile as a better (and much more efficient) alternative.
Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. I've read most of his
books, like many people here, and have a deep respect for him. He's at
google now, and discussed some of the real-world problems that Google
faces in their line of work. I shared his feelings that Common Lisp,
though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
not found in other languages have been adopted, gradually, making other
languages good (and often better) alternatives for certain applications.
I also got to talk to the guy who mostly wrote and maintains Open MCL,
Gary Byers, who was one of the nicest, most patient, and knowledgeable
Lisp guys I've ever met. Open MCL is another great Lisp, the engine
behind Digitool's MCL. He was extremely low-key, despite the swarm of
people with Macs that use and rave about MCL. I have never seen so many
Macs before (except product placement of Macs on TV and in movies). I
felt like one of a minority of people with a non-Mac laptop. In any
case, Open MCL has been ported to Linux (PPC), and is free, while
Digitool's MCL is coming soon to OS X, and if you buy it now, you get
the beta now for about $500 and then the stable addition when it comes
out (saving about $200 from buying it when it comes out, which IIRC will
happen around January...correct me if I'm wrong). Franz also passed out
their ACL 6.2 trial edition, which includes ACL for OS X. So now Mac OS
X is in the race with CL, with ECL, (Open) MCL, ACL, and others (CLISP,
etc.) I was also told that there's a working version of CLX on (Open)
MCL on OS X, which (along with XDarwin) allows a lot of graphical
CL-based programs work on the Mac (though they probably already did with
CLISP).
Roger Corman, author and maintainer of Corman Lisp for Win32, was also
there, and gave a great talk on multiprocessing in CL, and how it should
be implemented. I enjoyed the talk a lot, not to mention meeting in
person.
Even though we lived close by for many years, I never met Kent Pitman
until this past week. He's someone who shares many of the same concerns
as I do, but who's thought a lot more about them. Needless to say, you
learn a lot when you talk to him.
I am a big fan of the sdf public access UNIX system, and had the
pleasure of meeting Stephen Jones, who made this project happen. He is
simply the best deal in town with respect to hosting, accounts, speed,
bandwidth, and just about anything and everything you'd ever want from
someone hosting. He's also a Lisper, though not using CL (AFAIK) in his
day job at Marconi. Stephen was really cool to meet -- someone who has
really made things happen, single-handedly, and who is now profitable
with sdf. I would *strongly* suggest using and donating to
http://sdf.lonestar.org
Stephen is looking into providing Open Genera to sdf users, since he has
a license, and since he hosts with Alphas. I would suggest that for
people who want an email account for life, to have it at sdf. I don't
just mean the address...but the account. I'll be moving mine over soon
(thanks, Stephen).
On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
Symbolics. From several people who have used Open Genera, it seems like
the ideal Lisp environment. I don't know if it's for me, but if it goes
up on sdf, I'm there. For those who don't know, Open General supports
X, and so it pops up an X window on the Alpha into a emulated Lisp
machine (at least, this is my understanding, as someone who's never used
it). As far as you know, you're really on a Lisp machine...and don't
worry that it's an emulated environment -- it's supposedly faster than
ACL on the Alpha for several benchmarks.
The guy who told me about Open Genera, who also told me about tons of
other stuff, is Carl Shapiro, who's very young, but don't let this guy's
age fool you. He knows tons about every Lisp I've ever heard of, and
has used most quite a bit (ACL, LispWorks, Lucid (LCL), Genera, ...) and
whose work overlapped a bit with mine. He also has many Lisp machines
(20+) and is just a fun guy to ask questions to, since he knows so
much.
There were many talks...so many that I couldn't do justice. But I'll
mention some things that I was interested in.
First off, there was an incredible talk about a way to do constraint
logic programming with CL (called ConS/Lisp). It was presented by
Matthias Holzl, who designed a system, influenced by Screamer (Siskind),
in which many search-based CLP problems are fun and efficient to code.
He made intuitive and effective use of CLOS, and shows you how you can
define a langauge to decouple of the problem from strategies to solve
it. His paper should be coming soon, and I hope to read it.
I went to Duane Rettig's tutorial on simple streams, and it helped me to
see how they worked, though it didn't attempt so much to explain why a
redesign of streams was necessary, and why Grey streams was a failure
(other than saying that simple streams were much faster). However,
there wasn't much time, and all that is well documented in the simple
streams documentation available on Franz's site.
A couple of the guys from Digitool/HotDispatch were there, and spoke
quite elaborately on the HotDispatch success story. I think it's
amazing, because these guys built a really complete,
transactionally-intensive website almost 100% in CL. The HotDispatch
site is amazing, and I've been using it for years now for getting help
with simple jobs. It surprised me to see just how much of their system
was done in CL. They develop under MCL and deliver with LW. They have
their own webserver (in CL), some sort of O/R mapper, tons of services,
asynchronous notifications, a sophisticated caching layer, and
more...and it's all done in CL. An interesting story they told was that
after securing VC, they were instructed to port their system from CL to
Java, which was unusually difficult, and which made showed relative
productivity levels of a factor of 10 to 15 in favor of CL (of course,
YMMV if you try this in your company, but I'm not surprised). At the
same time, I'm working part-time on a site in the J2EE framework using
Jython primarily, and it's coming along faster than I would have
imagined (I guess reiterating Norvig's point that CL's got some stiff
competition -- at least for that sort of work). Oddly, my dream idea is
very closely related, in theory, to what the HotDispatch guys did, and
so I was naturally very interested, and glad to see their success. I
strongly recommend that people create profiles on HotDispatch if they're
looking for work (including work you can do from home, etc.)
On that note (of Lisp success stories) was ITA Software (used by
Orbitz). There was an interesting discussion of how their software
worked by one of the guys there. He discussed a bit of how they used
CL, though not exclusively CL, and how paramount speed was to their
system. The conclusion of that talk did include Lisp playing a key role
in their ongoing success, and ability to cope with the changing
environment, and with the complexity of their problem.
If you like CL, but your thing is more signals processing (forcing you
to use Matlab or something like it instead), then you might want to know
about an extremely multi-talented guy named John Amuedo, who's got a
crazy signals processing and graphics (plotting) environment in MCL. He
does all sorts of stuff with music, and has a rich background in AI.
I was glad to see that several works related and somehow overlapped with
my ongoing work in statistical pattern recognition. Jans Aasman's
recommendation engine, as well as several others made some use of
pattern recognition.
dave
Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's International
> Lisp Conference. But for the people who were unable to make it there
> this year, I'd like to say a few things about it, in the hopes that
> people will find one another, and good things will result.
Thanks for your summary.
Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
Regards
Henrik
From: Dave Bakhash
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <c29of99ixzy.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> writes:
> Thanks for your summary.
sure thing. I guess I left out that there were some opportunities for
CL programmers. I didn't get such a good look, but they were posted.
I'm sure they'll be posted here soon.
> Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
> some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
> anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
> pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
As I said, there should be some proceedings within the next few months.
If you go to http://www.international-lisp-conference.org and click on
speakers pages, you should be able to link to the abstracts of at least
some of the talks. If there's something you're interested in, then you
can probably contact the author directly, or (if you have trouble) post
that you're interested, and someone will get you the information you're
looking for.
Also, I did notice that Ray was taping some of the talks (including the
keynote speakers) so that might become available.
dave
On 31 Oct 2002 22:55:34 +0100, Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de>
wrote:
>Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's International
>> Lisp Conference. But for the people who were unable to make it there
>> this year, I'd like to say a few things about it, in the hopes that
>> people will find one another, and good things will result.
>
>Thanks for your summary.
Thanks! Yessir!
>Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
>some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
>anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
>pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
aye aye !! Please some photos! I am reeeeeealy curious to /see/ all
these people.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
Abhijit Rao <·········@yahoo.com> wrote in
·······································@4ax.com:
> On 31 Oct 2002 22:55:34 +0100, Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>>
>>> I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's
>>> International Lisp Conference. But for the people who were unable
>>> to make it there this year, I'd like to say a few things about it,
>>> in the hopes that people will find one another, and good things will
>>> result.
>>
>>Thanks for your summary.
>
> Thanks! Yessir!
>
>>Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
>>some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
>>anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
>>pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
>
> aye aye !! Please some photos! I am reeeeeealy curious to /see/ all
> these people.
>
> --
> quasi
> http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
>
> "I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank
> and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the
> morning." ~ A. Crowley
>
Do not forget the sign in helpers. ;->
marc
From: Bill Clementson
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <wky98bbqtd.fsf@attbi.com>
Abhijit Rao <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 31 Oct 2002 22:55:34 +0100, Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de>
> wrote:
> >Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
> >some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
> >anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
> >pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
>
> aye aye !! Please some photos! I am reeeeeealy curious to /see/ all
> these people.
Some pictures that I took are at:
http://lisp.home.attbi.com/ilc_2002.htm
I believe that ALU will be making available videos & a CD at a later
date.
--
Bill Clementson
From: Reini Urban
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC64BEB.5030900@inode.at>
Bill Clementson schrieb:
> Abhijit Rao <·········@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>On 31 Oct 2002 22:55:34 +0100, Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
>>>some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
>>>anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
>>>pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
>>
>>aye aye !! Please some photos! I am reeeeeealy curious to /see/ all
>>these people.
>
> Some pictures that I took are at:
> http://lisp.home.attbi.com/ilc_2002.htm
>
> I believe that ALU will be making available videos & a CD at a later
> date.
Uh. Roger Corman cut his hair!
--
Reini Urban - Programmer - http://inode.at
On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:28:59 +0100, Reini Urban <······@inode.at> wrote:
>Uh. Roger Corman cut his hair!
Guilty as charged! About a year ago. I updated my photo on the cormanlisp
web site quite back then as well.
I am sorry you weren't at the conference, Chris. Your name came up in a number
of conversations. I know it would have been a very long trip for you.
Roger
From: Chris Double
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <usmybgh9v.fsf@double.co.nz>
·····@corman.net (Roger Corman) writes:
> I am sorry you weren't at the conference, Chris. Your name came up
> in a number of conversations. I know it would have been a very long
> trip for you.
I was disappointed too. Work had indicated to me they would pay my way
to get there but due to administration problems the approval to do it
came too late. Next time I'll pay my own way just to make sure!
Chris.
--
http://www.double.co.nz/cl
On 31 Oct 2002 22:55:34 +0100, Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de>
wrote:
> Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
> some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
A couple of papers are already available:
A Free Implementation of CLIM
http://www.bricoworks.com/~moore/clim-paper.pdf
CLiki: collaborative content management for community web sites
http://ww.telent.net/ilc-slides/paper.tar
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 13:25:41 +0100, Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
wrote:
> A Free Implementation of CLIM
> http://www.bricoworks.com/~moore/clim-paper.pdf
Note that initial support for graph drawing was implemented since the paper
was written.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's
> International Lisp Conference.
Same here --- I'm skipping the wine-tasting tour in favor of work and
a home-life.... :-(
I went to the 1999 Lisp conference and gave a paper there. I thought
that one was good. This one was better, both qualitatively and
quantitatively. There were four solid days of presentations, with two
tracks in the morning on three of the days. There was one day of
tutorials with two tracks.
Some comments.
I agree with Dave regarding the organization, and particularly the
role Franz played. I personally found it transparent --- I just did
conference. I didn't have to think about anything else except which
presentations I wanted to hear. It was also fun. I probably
shouldn't say this, but the two registration helpers from Franz were
more of an attraction than some of the talks. :-)
The tutorials were a little disappointing --- the Advanced Lisp
tutorial in particular was too advanced for beginners (a beginner was
sitting right next to me and left about half way through it) and too
elementary for experienced lisp programmers. I ended up wishing I had
gone to Duane's talk on simple streams. Kent's tutorial was
interesting but not focused.
I found that many talks were sort of paired off with anti-talks (not
intentionally I'm sure). For example, Richard Stallman talked about
free software, and Kent Pitman talked about why he was not sure free
software was the right thing. Both talks were interesting and both
had points to argue with. Also, Roger Corman's excellent talk was
about how to implement OS-level threads with preemption, and it was
followed by another talk, also excellent, by Manuel Serrano, the
author of Bigloo, about why OS-level threads with preemption were a
bad idea. His code was in scheme, and I ended up calling his idea for
threads `hygenic threads' though I don't know if anyone would agree
with me on that. It did seem to be the intent, though: impose certain
disciplines on your threading mechanisms to avoid the nasty dark
corners.
One theme of the conference that I didn't necessarily like was what I
called `flying under the radar'. There was a sort of spectrum of
versions of this idea.
One talk, which I thought was going to be very different, was about
what the presenter called `ubiquitous Lisp'. Unfortunately his idea
was something like the following: Lisp is really just closures,
Javascript has closures, Javascript is everywhere, let's call
Javascript "Lisp" and declare victory. Perhaps coincidentally, the
speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
Another talk was called `sharpening the parentheses', and the idea was
to make Lisp into XML, then have a plugin that interpreted the
Lisp-XML in the browser. This, at least, was recognizably Lispy.
Most people were more positive about things. The slogan for these
people was "On the web nobody knows you're written in Lisp." True,
but what happened to "If you've got it, flaunt it." But I agree that
at least in these situations you can work in Lisp.
Peter Norvig, I think, has pretty much jumped ship. He's good to
listen to as someone who has gone through it, but he really isn't
pushing Lisp any more. One point he made was that at Google they
don't really need a Lisp toplevel or on-the-fly patching, because
they've got a highly redundant server farm with 10000 servers. When
they need to upgrade, they take the servers down one at a time and
upgrade them. When a server crashes, they have 9999 more to take up
the slack. What I took from his comments about this was that you
could choose between using Lisp or getting 10000 servers. :-)
Over and over again people at the conference said that they couldn't
do what they were doing without Lisp. I was glad to hear this. But
they'd also say that they either didn't emphasize Lisp or had trouble
even when successful with people complaining about their use of Lisp.
There were a few talks that I thought were incredibly good or
incredibly interesting for some reason that I want to focus on here.
An example of this was Doug Lenat speaking about Cyc. I've heard of
Lenat for years but never heard him speak. He is lucid and
entertaining as a speaker. He has devoted 20 or so years to something
that couldn't be done (according to many), namely building a huge
common-sense database that machines can use to reason about the world,
and is making a commercial success. He's hiring Lisp people ---
though the qualifications are that you have to `dream in Lisp'.
That's not so bad, but you also have to live in Texas. Oh well. Some
people reminded me that the unit of bogosity is the `micro-lenat' but
it did seem like he was accomplishing something pretty amazing.
Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
preface my comments by saying that I enjoyed his talk hugely and found
it fascinating.
He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
Objective-C object model. Having alienated most of his audience to an
extent that was audible, he then went on to speak about the origins of
life, and particularly the idea that some parts of the genetic code
are `precisely universally conserved', that is, everything alive on
the earth has these particular codes for particular proteins. The
point is that if a mutation occurs in this area, the organism isn't
viable. He used this as an argument for intelligent design. Not what
I expected at a Lisp conference, but certainly interesting. Something
I learned is that ribosomes are interpreters of the genetic code ---
they take messenger RNA and interpret it to produce the proteins it
codes for.
The conference ended with a talk by Harold Cohen, who is the author of
AARON, which is a program that he has been writing for 30 years to
create art. I think it was a bit unfortunate that he gave his talk at
the end, since only the `survivors' got to hear it. He talked about
how he had been writing this program for a long time, starting with
Fortran and then C, and had wound up in Lisp and CLOS when he needed
to get the program to work with color. The guy is a kind of genius.
He has written his program, which he says is 2mb of Lisp code, and
he's also built machines to render the paintings. He's also a painter
in his own right. He is an excellent speaker even though he's quite
old. He was obviously giving a prepared talk, but he was describing
something that was basically his life work and it showed. One amusing
aspect of his experience with the interface between technology and art
was the tendency for people to focus on the mechanisms he built to
render the art rather than the art itself. Early on he had a `turtle'
drawing machine and he had to stop using it and go to a flat-bed
plotter because people liked looking at the turtle too much. He also
had a painting machine and he said that people went bananas when the
machine started washing its brushes and paint cups when it was done.
As is always the case, one of the best things about the conference was
meeting fellow Lispers in the flesh. I got to spend a fair amount of
time talking with Rob Warnock, and I met J. P. Massar, both of whom
are (I think) pretty incredible talents.
I also met Marco Antoniotti, who in his spare time from posting to CLL
and doing other net-related stuff is actually doing world-class
bioinformatics. He's another guy that seems to be something of a
genius.
Tim Moore gave a good presentation of CLIM and McCLIM as well as
allowing me to corner him and pump him about CMUCL multiprocessing.
Daniel Barlow talked about CLiki. One problem with this conference is
that I can see that all my spare time for the next month or so is
going to be soaked up looking into all the stuff I heard people talk
about, such as CLiki.
Robert Strandh talked about GSharp, a new, usable version of which is
supposed to be coming out around Christmas. I know what I want in my
stocking! :-) GSharp is something like the TeX of music formatting,
and it's written using McCLIM.
Apart from that I met several people who were just curious about Lisp,
including a few who paid their own way to the conference just to find
out about it.
Numerous people asked me about Garnet. :-) I even brought it to show
people on my laptop. One old-time Lisper was surprised to see that it
still existed. It was fun to be recognized for something I'd done.
The conference will be held again next year, probably the second or
third week of October, in New York. I am planning on going again and
I hope to have a tutorial or presentation to give.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com || His word is a creative word, and
when he speaks the good exists as good. God is neither arbitrary nor
tyrannical. He is love, and when he expresses his will it is a will
of love. Hence the good given by God is good for us.-- Jacques Ellul
From: vsync
Subject: difficulty getting acceptance for Lisp projects (was Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF)
Date:
Message-ID: <87lm48c60c.fsf_-_@piro.quadium.net>
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> Most people were more positive about things. The slogan for these
> people was "On the web nobody knows you're written in Lisp." True,
> but what happened to "If you've got it, flaunt it." But I agree that
> at least in these situations you can work in Lisp.
[...]
> Over and over again people at the conference said that they couldn't
> do what they were doing without Lisp. I was glad to hear this. But
> they'd also say that they either didn't emphasize Lisp or had trouble
> even when successful with people complaining about their use of Lisp.
I've had the same problem. I'm currently working on a Lisp-based site
and content management suite thing (can't really come up with a more
concise definition than that ATM) using mod_lisp. (This has curtailed
my Usenet postings for some months now, as I finally realized that
it's far more productive to do nothing but hack Lisp than to do
nothing but talk about Lisp incessantly. I tend to be fairly
obsessive, so for me it's one or the other in the early phases.) My
primary goal is to have something I like for myself to use, but
secondarily I hope to either show it off as part of my portfolio for
jobs requiring knowledge of Lisp-based or similar languages, or to use
the codebase for consulting, charge for support, modifications, etc.
Anyway, I've got it to a point where it works tolerably fast for a
small site, it doesn't break down, and it's admin friendly and stable
enough to start deploying to my test box. I've been showing it to a
friend of mine, and he's been impressed with how it works, how it's
organized, and the cleanliness of the HTML output (we both worked for
a "vertical portal company" which produced the most broken (both in
organization and in syntax) HTML I've ever seen).
There's nothing that I couldn't have done in another language, of
course, (all hail Turing) but Common Lisp has been extremely helpful,
from CLOS's multiple-inheritance and method combination, to the macro
facilities I was able to use to cleanly and easily generate the HTML,
to the condition system and extremely helpful "little things" such as
pathnames. How do I explain this? Most people seem to think that if
it can be done in something besides a Lisp, that it necessarily
_should_ be done in anything besides a Lisp.
My friend knows that I like Lisp, and from some Slashdot postings that
I wrote, complete with code snippets, he's come to understand why I
like it over, say, Java (he already despises C++). He also knows that
I've been writing this primarily so that I can easily create
Web-accessible resources using a language and libraries I enjoy. And
I'm purposefully setting things up so that it will be as easy to
install (or easier) than any other Apache plugin, and that no
knowledge of Lisp, or even that my software is written in Lisp, is
necessary. But it always comes back to the same thing: "Cool! Now
that you've got it fleshed out, how long will it take you to translate
it from the godly metalanguage Lisp [his words] into something more
normal?"
I can never really explain that the need for the concept expressed by
his question isn't really relevant to me, nor that I can't really see
the point in rewriting something that works fine, and that works as
robustly as it does because the environment I used made it acceptable
and easy to write more robust code than seems normal. Then the
conversation always moves to a tiresome discussion of things like
"marketing" and "mass acceptance" and stuff I can't bring myself to
care about.
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/
"If MS could only work this hard to make quality software. But they
never do. If they can't play dirty tricks they get bored and go out in
the corridor to play paint-ball."
-- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43916&cid=4576582
From: Chris Beggy
Subject: Re: difficulty getting acceptance for Lisp projects (was Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF)
Date:
Message-ID: <87fzuf7tqx.fsf@lackawana.kippona.com>
vsync <·····@quadium.net> writes:
> I've had the same problem. I'm currently working on a Lisp-based site
> and content management suite thing (can't really come up with a more
> concise definition than that ATM) using mod_lisp.
That's great!
From: Craig Brozefsky
Subject: Re: difficulty getting acceptance for Lisp projects (was Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF)
Date:
Message-ID: <878z07ajh5.fsf@piracy.red-bean.com>
vsync <·····@quadium.net> writes:
> necessary. But it always comes back to the same thing: "Cool! Now
> that you've got it fleshed out, how long will it take you to translate
> it from the godly metalanguage Lisp [his words] into something more
> normal?"
How about, "When its done, and that won't happen for another couple
years, but it would go faster if you helped me write the lisp."
> I can never really explain that the need for the concept expressed by
> his question isn't really relevant to me, nor that I can't really see
> the point in rewriting something that works fine, and that works as
> robustly as it does because the environment I used made it acceptable
> and easy to write more robust code than seems normal. Then the
> conversation always moves to a tiresome discussion of things like
> "marketing" and "mass acceptance" and stuff I can't bring myself to
> care about.
The site configuration and content mgmt market is so full of shite
that I think it's obvious that doing it over in a "more accpetbale"
language is in itself a step backwards, because for any acceptable
language there are an ungodly number of similarly small-time site mgmt
toolkits just like it. How would it compete for users and developers
in such a saturated market? By sticking with lisp you are aiming for
a different level of user and developer which can help your toolkit
advance with the state of the art. If you scrunch it into another
language you are likely to lose the flexibility and ease of
development and experementation that will differentiate your toolkit
from the bajillion others.
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: difficulty getting acceptance for Lisp projects (was Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3adknd5i7.fsf@cley.com>
* Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> The site configuration and content mgmt market is so full of shite
> that I think it's obvious that doing it over in a "more accpetbale"
> language is in itself a step backwards, because for any acceptable
> language there are an ungodly number of similarly small-time site mgmt
> toolkits just like it. How would it compete for users and developers
> in such a saturated market? By sticking with lisp you are aiming for
> a different level of user and developer which can help your toolkit
> advance with the state of the art. If you scrunch it into another
> language you are likely to lose the flexibility and ease of
> development and experementation that will differentiate your toolkit
> from the bajillion others.
This is always the dilemma. In a related area, Sun face the same kind
of issues. The baying hordes are crying for them to convert to Linux
and x86, but if they do that, what do they have to offer? Well-made
and maintained machines? I dunno.
--tim
"Fred Gilham" <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote in message
···················@snapdragon.csl.sri.com...
> One talk, which I thought was going to be very different, was about
> what the presenter called `ubiquitous Lisp'. Unfortunately his idea
> was something like the following: Lisp is really just closures,
> Javascript has closures, Javascript is everywhere, let's call
> Javascript "Lisp" and declare victory.
I think that is a gross mischaracterization of my talk.
I'd like to set the record straight.
The conventional world is stealing LISP hubcaps rather than just stealing
the whole CAR. Given that approach, I think the most valuable aspect of
LISP for a conventional language to acquire is closures (by far!). (If we
could get only one feature into a conventional language from LISP, that
would be the feature to shoot for.)
Javascript has them, and that is no small thing. (Perl does too, but has no
object system, and features dynamic scoping. Java and Python don't have
closures.)
That's about as far as I'd agree with your summary.
I never claimed that LISP is just closures. I made it very clear that there
are many aspects of LISP beyond closures that are worth having; in
particular a simple syntax. I even mentioned that Javascript needs macros
but if it had macros it would be a mess because of the complicated syntax.
The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
better left to Sisyphus).
I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause for
declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
conventional languages half way.
It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible rather
than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good. (For
instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression based:
this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope of
an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization, perhaps
it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to learn
it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot of
users, to get those users you must be widespread.
Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
than it has?
I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics have
been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby gathering
more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting priorities
straight!
Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse trap,
it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to offer,
but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our part.
> Perhaps coincidentally, the
> speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous pot
shot.
First of all it is none of anyone's business what my comings and goings were
at the conference, leave alone announcing it to the entire world as a matter
of permanent public record henceforth. I would think conference attendees
would have much greater respect for the privacy of fellow attendees than
that.
I had a job to do (presenting) and I accomplished it. End of story! I did
my part!
Secondly, I did not have my expenses picked up by any company: they were
all coming out of my own pocket. I had to pay the standard conference
attendance fee merely to present, even though I attended no talks on the day
I presented.
I wanted to attend the future of LISP meeting and the 2nd day of the
conference, but that would have meant more expense and more vacation days
used up.
Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like LISP
to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how much
we are willing to do.
Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
desiring our time, money, and attention.
As it was, I stayed after my talk long enough so that anyone who wished to
ask questions or give me feedback had an opportunity to do so; even though
it delayed the long drive I had ahead of me. (I wound up arriving home very
late, with little time to rest before reporting back to work.)
Gimme a break!
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-0811020928320001@192.168.1.51>
In article <·····················@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Java and Python don't have closures.
Python has had closures since version 2:
Python 2.2b2 (#1, Dec 4 2001, 02:00:33)
[GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-85)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> def foo(x): return lambda(y): x+y
...
>>> baz = foo(3)
>>> baz(5)
8
Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
interpreted language."
E.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <·····················@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Java and Python don't have closures.
>
> Python has had closures since version 2:
This can be disputed.
> Python 2.2b2 (#1, Dec 4 2001, 02:00:33)
> [GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-85)] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> def foo(x): return lambda(y): x+y
> ...
> >>> baz = foo(3)
> >>> baz(5)
> 8
My turn! Suppose we want to mutate a variable from an outer scope:
Python 2.2b2 (#1, Nov 21 2001, 14:42:03)
[GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-81)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> def bar(x):
... def acc(y):
... x += y # assignment is a "statement" so can't go in a lambda
... return x
... return acc
...
>>> qux = bar(0)
>>> qux(0)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
File "<stdin>", line 3, in acc
UnboundLocalError: local variable 'x' referenced before assignment
Oops! No can do. This bites. Certainly it bites me, hard and more
often than I'd like. If "closures" which use this kind of
look-but-don't-touch scoping are good enough for you, then python has
closures. (They fixed scoping, and now I wish they'd fix the fix.
Sigh.)
Incidentally, there's a thread over in comp.lang.python at the moment
about Lisp, if anyone wants to pop over for a spot of gentle advocacy.
It would make a pleasant change if somebody put the case for today's
Lisp over there - these discussions are usually dominated by
traumatised ex-students of delinquent AI professors, with the
occasional Scheme weenie frothing about the Inherent Necessity of tail
call elimination.
> Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
> interpreted language."
The former is debatable, the latter is a category error. How about
"Lisp is popular with academics doing AI"?
Des
--
Des Small, Scientific Programmer,
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, UK.
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <pcoof8ylmjx.fsf@thoth.math.ntnu.no>
+ Des Small <·········@bristol.ac.uk>:
| My turn! Suppose we want to mutate a variable from an outer scope:
|
| Python 2.2b2 (#1, Nov 21 2001, 14:42:03)
| [GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-81)] on linux2
| Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
| >>> def bar(x):
| ... def acc(y):
| ... x += y # assignment is a "statement" so can't go in a lambda
| ... return x
| ... return acc
| ...
| >>> qux = bar(0)
| >>> qux(0)
| Traceback (most recent call last):
| File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
| File "<stdin>", line 3, in acc
| UnboundLocalError: local variable 'x' referenced before assignment
|
| Oops! No can do. This bites. Certainly it bites me, hard and more
| often than I'd like.
It bites because you try to write lisp code in python. The python way
is to use classes for this sort of thing:
>>> class snake:
... def __init__(self,n):
... self.n=n
... def feed(self,n):
... self.n+=n
... return self.n
...
>>> python=snake(50)
>>> python.feed(5)
55
>>> boa=snake(30)
>>> boa.feed(5)
35
>>> python.feed(15)
70
>>>
Class methods get around the two (or three) namespaces problems
because when called, they automagically receive the object as the
first argument ("self" in the above example), which gives you access
to the object's own namespace.
I find this easy and intuitive, though not by any stretch of the
imagination up to the power of CLOS, of course.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Yes it works in practice - but does it work in theory?
"Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
·························@192.168.1.51...
> In article <·····················@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Java and Python don't have closures.
>
> Python has had closures since version 2:
I stand corrected. I was fooled by this dated article:
http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$462
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <·····················@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Java and Python don't have closures.
> Python has had closures since version 2:
> Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
> interpreted language."
There are still some problems according to
http://www.p-nand-q.com/lambda.htm
It appears that the body of the lambda-expression must be an expression
(and not all statements in Python is expressions).
Jens Axel S�gaard <······@jasoegaard.dk> writes:
> Erann Gat wrote:
> > In article <·····················@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>Java and Python don't have closures.
>
> > Python has had closures since version 2:
>
> > Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
> > interpreted language."
>
> There are still some problems according to
>
> http://www.p-nand-q.com/lambda.htm
>
> It appears that the body of the lambda-expression must be an expression
> (and not all statements in Python is expressions).
lambda in Python is just a mistake. Give your function a name for
heavens sake!
Cheers,
M.
PS: examples showing why anonymous functions are useful in, e.g.,
Common Lisp are not relavent here.
--
While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic in
Quake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work. -- C Hacking
-- http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.html
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey37kflse10.fsf@cley.com>
* Michael Hudson wrote:
> PS: examples showing why anonymous functions are useful in, e.g.,
> Common Lisp are not relavent here.
Why not?
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Michael Hudson wrote:
> > PS: examples showing why anonymous functions are useful in, e.g.,
> > Common Lisp are not relavent here.
>
> Why not?
Because I'm talking about Python. Trying to write CL in Python is not
much more sensible than trying to write C++ in scheme, or whatever.
Actually, having spent a while writing out and then deleting an
example, I'm not sure why (for CL; I've been doing more elisp of late
and it's more different there).
Are there situations in CL where an anonymous function has clear
benefits over a flet?
Cheers,
M.
--
> Why are we talking about bricks and concrete in a lisp newsgroup?
After long experiment it was found preferable to talking about why
Lisp is slower than C++...
-- Duane Rettig & Tim Bradshaw, comp.lang.lisp
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:57:52PM +0000, Michael Hudson wrote:
> Because I'm talking about Python. Trying to write CL in Python is not
> much more sensible than trying to write C++ in scheme, or whatever.
I very much agree. You can imagine my surprise when I tried to do:
for item in vec[:].sort():
in Python.
> Are there situations in CL where an anonymous function has clear
> benefits over a flet?
Convenience. Let us consider the above example again; instead of
writing that I have to write:
new_vec = vec[:].sort()
for item in new_vec:
Similarly, instead of writing:
(mapcar #'(lambda (x) (frob a x)) vec)
or
(mapcar (curry #'frob a) vec)
I have to write:
(flet ((some-silly-name (x) (frob a x)))
(mapcar #'some-silly-name vec))
And Python doesn't even give you FLET (afaik, feel free to correct me.
Note that nested DEFs are not the same).
Of course, it does seem that Python is trying as hard as possible not to
be accorded the status of functional language. I say, let them have
what they want. Python is not a functional language, for all intents
and purposes, anyway.
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
Matthew Danish wrote:
> I very much agree. You can imagine my surprise when I tried to do:
>
> for item in vec[:].sort():
>
> in Python.
...
> Convenience. Let us consider the above example again; instead of
> writing that I have to write:
>
> new_vec = vec[:].sort()
> for item in new_vec:
Er, you don't mean that. You mean (alas!)
new_vec = vec[:]
new_vec.sort()
for item in new_vec:
[stuff]
The Python answer to this is very similar to the Lisp answer
to "Lisp is no good because doing X is verbose": you can make
it less verbose at a one-off cost in code. (And, in Python
but not in Lisp, a small cost in efficiency. No macros.)
def sorted_copy(x):
result = x[:]
result.sort()
return result
for item in sorted_copy(vec):
[stuff]
Guido van Rossum considers it a *good* thing that lists'
"sort" method doesn't return the list, because that might
encourage some people to think it returns a sorted *copy*
instead of mutating the list. I'm no more convinced than
I expect everyone else in c.l.l to be :-), but it is a
deliberate choice rather than a random blunder.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3lm41qw0u.fsf@cley.com>
* Michael Hudson wrote:
> Are there situations in CL where an anonymous function has clear
> benefits over a flet?
It's concise. Why say:
(flet ((need-a-name-for-this (x)
...))
(map-x #'need-a-name-for-this ...))
When you can say
(map-x #'(lambda (x) ...) ...)
--tim
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <trCdnea9MrVAIlOgXTWc2Q@dls.net>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> It's concise. Why say:
>
> (flet ((need-a-name-for-this (x)
> ...))
> (map-x #'need-a-name-for-this ...))
>
> When you can say
>
> (map-x #'(lambda (x) ...) ...)
Because you can say this:
(flet ((need-a-name-for-this (x)
...))
(declare (dynamic-extent (function need-a-name-for-this)))
(map-x #'need-a-name-for-this ...))
For some builtin functions the system can infer that the
closure does not escape, but in general it can't.
Paul
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3smy9rtov.fsf@cley.com>
* Paul F Dietz wrote:
> (flet ((need-a-name-for-this (x)
> ...))
> (declare (dynamic-extent (function need-a-name-for-this)))
> (map-x #'need-a-name-for-this ...))
Or this:
(let ((f #'(lambda ...)))
(declare (dynamic-extent f))
(map-x f ...))
I didn't claim that either FLET or binding a function was not useful,
just that it was useful to not make it compulsory.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Michael Hudson wrote:
>
> > Are there situations in CL where an anonymous function has clear
> > benefits over a flet?
>
> It's concise.
OK, but in Python there are other disadvantages of anonymous functions
that overcome *that* benefit.
I think Python's lambda is a bad idea because it encourages a style of
programming that's not really appropriate for Python. I know some
people disagree with me on this but they're, well, wrong :)
Cheers,
M.
--
Not only does the English Language borrow words from other
languages, it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits
them over the head, and goes through their pockets. -- Eddy Peters
"Michael Hudson" <···@python.net> wrote in message
····················@pc150.maths.bris.ac.uk...
> Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
>
> > * Michael Hudson wrote:
> > > PS: examples showing why anonymous functions are useful in, e.g.,
> > > Common Lisp are not relavent here.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because I'm talking about Python. Trying to write CL in Python is not
> much more sensible than trying to write C++ in scheme, or whatever.
All the functions I define in javascript are anonymous. Even the ones I
bind to names.
I.e. I don't do this:
function foo(x) ...
rather this:
var foo;
foo = function(x)...
That means all my functions are anonymous and they show that way on the
stack.
So, I name them like this:
foo.name = "this is my name";
if I want them to show in stack traces.
I find I need anonymous functions all over the place: once you start
thinking in terms of closures you use them like crazy and don't want to have
to name them.
Closures are rock solid in IE6 Javascript with no caveats of any sort. They
are every bit as solid and natural as in Scheme.
However, the C syntax makes them harder to read than in Scheme and there are
no macros to hide the details.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245941878413642@naggum.no>
* Michael Hudson
| Are there situations in CL where an anonymous function has clear benefits
| over a flet?
(defun silly-example ()
(flet ((flet () 'hello))
#'flet))
Most people would prefer an anonymous function here.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Jens Axel S�gaard <······@jasoegaard.dk> writes:
> Erann Gat wrote:
> > In article <·····················@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>Java and Python don't have closures.
>
> > Python has had closures since version 2:
>
> > Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
> > interpreted language."
>
> There are still some problems according to
>
> http://www.p-nand-q.com/lambda.htm
>
> It appears that the body of the lambda-expression must be an expression
> (and not all statements in Python is expressions).
There are problems with lambdas, but you don't have to use them.
>>> def foo(x):
... def f(y):
... print "Hello, World!" # <-- doesn't work in a lamda expr
... return x + y
... return f
...
>>> bar = foo(2)
>>> baz = foo(3)
>>> bar(1)
Hello, World!
3
>>> baz(1)
Hello, World!
4
>>>
Additionally, I don't know any statement that couldn't be translated
into an expression, for example "print 'foo'" could be written
"sys.stdout.write('foo\n')". But that often becomes clumsy.
Regards
Henrik
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey38z04uxnc.fsf@cley.com>
* Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
> With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
> than it has?
I don't think the CL community is doing much R&D into programming
languages, as a community. If it was then I expect CL would be
associated with a plethora of enhancements to the language. There are
lots of enhancements to CL, of course, but they tend to be of the
`semi-standard binding to SQL databases' type, which I don't think is
the same thing as, say `new model for massively parallel computation'
type - connectivity to SQL databases, for instance, is something that
you really do need to get accepted. The most linguistic-level
enhancements I'm aware of would be threading &c, but even those are no
longer researchy-type things: everyone has threads.
So I think the CL community really is trying to make CL more
widespread at the expense of language research. There may be other
`lisp' communities (perhaps the scheme community) where things are
different, but they are different groups of people by & large.
--tim
PS I'm not trying to put your talk down. I wasn't at the conference,
and even if I was, and disagreed with what you said, I appreciate the
effort too much to want to be nasty...
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
...
> So I think the CL community really is trying to make CL more
> widespread at the expense of language research. There may be other
> `lisp' communities (perhaps the scheme community) where things are
> different, but they are different groups of people by & large.
...
While I agree with your point, note that there may be some "researchy"
topics which could be helpful to CL as a whole, however, it is now
unclear where one could send papers to (unless you write about "Crazy
Typing Classes for a Variant of Concurrent INTERCAL". :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th 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'.
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
> * Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
market
> > than it has?
>
> I don't think the CL community is doing much R&D into programming
> languages, as a community.
[...]
> So I think the CL community really is trying to make CL more
> widespread at the expense of language research. There may be other
> `lisp' communities (perhaps the scheme community) where things are
> different, but they are different groups of people by & large.
What I had in mind was ACM LISP and Functional Programming conference
material that is more theoretical like lambda calculus, combinators,
denotational semantics, and beyond.
All crucial topics; but given a choice of more emphasis on marketing LISP
versus more esoteric stuff and I'd have to opt for the former (at least in
the short run).
I'd love to see ILC '03 have a theme of "Marketing LISP" and invite papers
on that topic; with perhaps 2 or 3 days devoted to papers on that topic.
If the LISP community focused on making LISP more widespread I have
confidence it could be achieved by the brain power within the community.
[...]
> PS I'm not trying to put your talk down. I wasn't at the conference,
> and even if I was, and disagreed with what you said, I appreciate the
> effort too much to want to be nasty...
I know you're not; and I don't want to give the impression to anyone that I
would jump on anyone for disagreeing. I welcome it: that's the very
purpose of academia and conferences.
The only caveat is: I want people to talk about my topic; not me!
And of course, I would hope that critics would at least be fair!
Thanks for your kind words.
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
> ····················@cley.com...
> > * Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on
> > > itself a moratorium on research and development in order to
> > > focus on making LISP more widespread as the primary goal (at
> > > least for the shortrun).
> >
> > I don't think the CL community is doing much R&D into programming
> > languages, as a community.
> [...]
> > So I think the CL community really is trying to make CL more
> > widespread at the expense of language research. There may be
> > other `lisp' communities (perhaps the scheme community) where
> > things are different, but they are different groups of people by &
> > large.
>
> What I had in mind was ACM LISP and Functional Programming
> conference material that is more theoretical like lambda calculus,
> combinators, denotational semantics, and beyond.
>
> All crucial topics; but given a choice of more emphasis on marketing
> LISP versus more esoteric stuff and I'd have to opt for the former
> (at least in the short run).
This argument doesn't seem to hold any water. You seem to be implying
that there is some sort of zero-sum game, where effort now being spent
doing the research that gets published at the ICFP conference could be
shifted into marketing Lisp. This ignores the fact that the
programming language research community:
- Is funded largely by government research funds, not by the Lisp vendors
- Is working with the goal of advancing human knowledge, and the
careers of the researchers, not the interests of the Lisp community.
- Is to some degree distinct from the Lisp community, because it
- No longer sees Common Lisp (or even Scheme, anymore) as a rich
source of further research topics. Common Lisp is a mature language
for real-world applications development. It has already been the subject
of its fair share of research.
There are many things that Lisp implementors can learn from
ICFP/POPL/PLDI/etc. research, and I fail to see how type theory and
formulations of semantics are taking anything away from the popularity
of Lisp.
-Peter-
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 11:21:51 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What I had in mind was ACM LISP and Functional Programming conference
> material that is more theoretical like lambda calculus, combinators,
> denotational semantics, and beyond.
I seem to remember that it is being called International Conference on
Functional Programming since at least the late nineties. Again, if I recall
correctly, while the proceedings do include some Scheme papers, there
weren't many papers--if at all--about Common Lisp lately[*].
> All crucial topics; but given a choice of more emphasis on marketing LISP
> versus more esoteric stuff and I'd have to opt for the former (at least in
> the short run).
If you want to bring something to the masses via marketing, I wonder why
you care about academic research journals at all. Sky & Telescope probably
does a better job of popularizing astronomy than the Astrophysical Journal
or Classical and Quantum Gravity. And Hayden Planetarium shows may be more
useful than astronomy lessons at the Physics/Astronomy department of the
local university.
> If the LISP community focused on making LISP more widespread I have
> confidence it could be achieved by the brain power within the community.
The Common Lisp community is doing just that: it's working on the
development of useful and usable libraries and tools. I suspect that you
are not up to date with this work.
You might consider contributing to one of those projects. What if marketing
efforts bring the masses to Lisp, but Lisp has nothing to offer?
And, by the way, Common Lisp _is_ becoming more widespread. Besides the
already mentioned projects, there are also new vendors. Again, I suspect
you are not aware of this.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
> > Perhaps coincidentally, the
> > speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
>
> While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap,
> gratuitous pot shot.
>
> First of all it is none of anyone's business what my comings and
> goings were at the conference, leave alone announcing it to the
> entire world as a matter of permanent public record henceforth. I
> would think conference attendees would have much greater respect for
> the privacy of fellow attendees than that.
>
> I had a job to do (presenting) and I accomplished it. End of story!
> I did my part!
>
> Secondly, I did not have my expenses picked up by any company: they
> were all coming out of my own pocket. I had to pay the standard
> conference attendance fee merely to present, even though I attended
> no talks on the day I presented.
>
> I wanted to attend the future of LISP meeting and the 2nd day of the
> conference, but that would have meant more expense and more vacation
> days used up.
I want to say that I regret causing offense to Andre van Meulebrouc.
While my comment was meant humorously, I can see that I didn't take
into consideration the level of effort for some that was involved in
just attending the conference, and my comment made light of that
effort. I appreciate the fact that a number of people paid for the
conference, or their travel (in this case) out of their own pockets.
I was subsidized by my company both in fees and time. People who are
willing to pay to attend show an encouraging level of commitment, one
that I didn't have to match, at least in this particular instance.
I thought his talk was well presented and made a point. I disagreed
with the point, but the fact that I was able to understand it enough
to disagree with it indicates that it was clear, at least to that
extent. My comments did not rise to the level of being a complete
characterization of the talk.
This talk certainly belonged at the conference. Its author was trying
to make a contribution to the future of Lisp and had done some solid
work.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into
the slaughterhouse. --- James Ostrowski
"Fred Gilham" <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote in message
···················@snapdragon.csl.sri.com...
> I want to say that I regret causing offense to Andre van Meulebrouck.
I appreciate that; and for my part I'll work on growing thicker skin and
developing better diplomacy.
Thanks.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCBDF1B.2080101@nyc.rr.com>
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
> it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
> world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
> better left to Sisyphus).
Two thoughts. One, if we think selling Lisp is hard, wait till we try
influencing the JavaScript designers. Two, Lisp will lose a lot of its
appeal morphed into JavaScript, making it harder for Lisp to prevail. I
get your idea of playing the virus if we can't stomp the beast, but then
I think we /are/ stomping the beast already, most CLers just do not
realize it yet.
> Rather it should
> encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> conventional languages half way.
Screw conventional languages. ;) We have just begun to fight, and we are
winning. Python, Java, and Perl are lame efforts to stave off the
inevitable triumph of Lisp. As when the communist block attempted to
turn itself around by allowing a little capitalism and a little
political freedom.
>
> It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible rather
> than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
> However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
This gives me a whole new perspective on "upbeat". ;) Hey, your love of
Lisp is obvious, but don't, um, despair, that other branch in the tree
of languages is now growing in our direction because they want what we
have. And I would not call them hubcaps, they want our fuel injection,
ABS, airbags, and low drag coefficient. As with my communism analogy, it
is only a matter of time before they go for sexprs, then the fat lady sings.
I like to point out here that I remember when IT had standardized once
and for all on COBOL, VSAM, CICS, BASIC, and Pascal. C++ dominated for
about a week. Now, fuggedaboutit, nothing is going to stop Java. (Ignore
those people over there doing Python, Perl, and Ruby.)
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
It is impossible to lose weight. One can change change one's life
drastically: change what and how much one eats, restructure one's life
to make time for regular exercise, but one cannot lose weight.
By the same token, we cannot make Lisp more popular. We can make Lisp
even better (an open source ODB or GUI or whatever) and we can talk Lisp
up (KP's bit on slashdot was great), but all in all i think we should
forget popularity as a primary goal. Besides, it is happening anyway. We
just need to grease the skids with a Lisp browser plug-in or other cool
stuff in "100% Pure Lisp".
>
> With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
> than it has?
The problem is the minds not in the Lisp community. almost all IT types
are followers. We do not need to win over the herd, we need to win over
the few who lead the herd. And looked at this way, it becomes clear why
popularity is not something one tackles head on, because the herd is
really just following a few; they do not even have free will, how are we
going to win them over?
> Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
> focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby gathering
> more of a grass roots following).
How does a more Lisp-y JavaScript create revenue for Lisp vendors?
>>Perhaps coincidentally, the
>>speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
>
>
> While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous pot
> shot.
FWIW, it was offered and taken (by me, at least) in jest.
btw, thx for opening my eyes to JavaScript. I was unaware that the Java
in front was a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing deal.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
·····················@nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> > The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP
as
> > it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the
conventional
> > world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> > fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a
job
> > better left to Sisyphus).
>
> Two thoughts. One, if we think selling Lisp is hard, wait till we try
> influencing the JavaScript designers.
Why? You don't have to bother with Javascript designers; you merely have to
participate in the standards committees for ECMAScript.
And, the LISP community could circumvent even that issue by coming out with
SchemeScript and creating browsers that support both Javascript and
SchemeScript as scripting languages.
> Two, Lisp will lose a lot of its
> appeal morphed into JavaScript, making it harder for Lisp to prevail.
That's an important issue to grapple with and I addressed it in both my
paper and my presentation. (Generally my presentation went beyond my paper;
but there are a few things in the paper not in the presentation.)
I think the world is big enough to support burgers and fine dinning (and
sometimes fine dinners feel like eating burgers and vice versa).
In other words, I see no problem in the masses have a shlock LISP. LISP
becoming popular would not be the death of LISP. There is still plenty of
room for purists versions of LISP; and with a greater influx of users and
money, I am certain there would be plenty to go around to make every
conceivable taste in LISP quite happy.
In other words, an infusion of money and popularity would be the tide that
floats all boats.
> I
> get your idea of playing the virus if we can't stomp the beast,
Well said! Nice way of putting it.
> but then
> I think we /are/ stomping the beast already, most CLers just do not
> realize it yet.
I don't see how: I'm not following you. Perhaps you could elaborate?
I think a Scheme based scripting language is necessary for the masses
because Common LISP is a little too large and high end for the average joe.
> > Rather it should
> > encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> > conventional languages half way.
>
> Screw conventional languages. ;) We have just begun to fight, and we are
> winning. Python, Java, and Perl are lame efforts to stave off the
> inevitable triumph of Lisp. As when the communist block attempted to
> turn itself around by allowing a little capitalism and a little
> political freedom.
Hope you're right, but I don't see that as the case in Javascript.
> > It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible
rather
> > than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
> > However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> > LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
>
> This gives me a whole new perspective on "upbeat". ;) Hey, your love of
> Lisp is obvious, but don't, um, despair, that other branch in the tree
> of languages is now growing in our direction because they want what we
> have. And I would not call them hubcaps, they want our fuel injection,
> ABS, airbags, and low drag coefficient.
Yes.
> As with my communism analogy, it
> is only a matter of time before they go for sexprs, then the fat lady
sings.
I'm not sure that's the case in Javascript.
When I first starting working in Javascript, I saw Scheme nomenclature in it
and Scheme fingerprints all over it.
Then the O'Reilly Javascript book came right out and said it by comparing
"functional literals" (closures) to "LISP". Dare they utter the "L" word?
I had the feeling I was being let in on a deep dark secret that Microsoft
would just as soon no one knew about (lest the "L" word prove the kiss of
death for marketing).
However, I have never met another Javascript programmer that uses closures,
nor even knows what they are; leave alone that they are in Javascript.
I've been told by Javascript programmers that they have never seen a
Javacript programming style like mine before anywhere (not on usenet, not on
the net, not anywhere).
When I try to explain closures to Javascript programmers, they not only fail
to get it; they look as if they feel threatened. Only one conventional
programmer understood me; but that's because they have a background in LISP
from Emacs. (And I thought I was good at explaining things! =:0)
I've yet to meet someone who doesn't have a LISP background that understands
closures.
So, why are closures in Javascript if they aren't being pushed or even used?
How did they get there? Inquiring minds want to know; so I asked the
inventor of Javacript whether it had any LISP heritage (on the sly or
otherwise), via e-mail. No response (presumably they are innundated with
e-mail). However, Netscape has a parser/grammar in CL so I do suspect at
least some LISPiness at Netscape, though this is all terribly anecdotal
conjecture on my part.
I have yet to see a Javascript programmer ask for macros or a first class IF
function.
Languages can expand our thinking or limit it. If the language doesn't
support a feature; you're less likely to imagine it in its absence.
Exposure to LISP is the antidote to tunnel vision; that's my feeling on it.
> I like to point out here that I remember when IT had standardized once
> and for all on COBOL, VSAM, CICS, BASIC, and Pascal. C++ dominated for
> about a week. Now, fuggedaboutit, nothing is going to stop Java. (Ignore
> those people over there doing Python, Perl, and Ruby.)
You are persuasive and give me hope! I see your point. Good observation.
No matter how strong things seem now; the industry is very quick to move on
to new things: you're point is well taken.
Likewise, I recall when the newspapers were full of ads for PICK BASIC; now
that's a dinosaur with a flash-in-the-pan history.
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> By the same token, we cannot make Lisp more popular.
How about if we agree to disagree about that: I think we can and should
(and MUST) make LISP more popular by making it more accessible and via
education efforts (short of evangelism).
> We can make Lisp
> even better (an open source ODB or GUI or whatever) and we can talk Lisp
> up (KP's bit on slashdot was great), but all in all i think we should
> forget popularity as a primary goal. Besides, it is happening anyway. We
> just need to grease the skids with a Lisp browser plug-in or other cool
> stuff in "100% Pure Lisp".
Hear hear on the LISP browser! That's right out of my talk!
> > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
market
> > than it has?
>
> The problem is the minds not in the Lisp community. almost all IT types
> are followers. We do not need to win over the herd, we need to win over
> the few who lead the herd. And looked at this way, it becomes clear why
> popularity is not something one tackles head on, because the herd is
> really just following a few; they do not even have free will, how are we
> going to win them over?
By innovative products!
By continually trying new things until we find something that does the
trick.
By not giving up (move over Sisyphus!).
> > Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
> > focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby
gathering
> > more of a grass roots following).
>
> How does a more Lisp-y JavaScript create revenue for Lisp vendors?
By being a step in the right direction. By incrementalism. By making it
easier to write code transformers from LISP to Javascript (which would get
easier as Javascript gets cleaner). By trying to meet in the middle.
By combining that with a LISP browser that supports Javascript so that
Javascript programmers will want to move over to LISP in a non-threatening
way at their own pace.
> >>Perhaps coincidentally, the
> >>speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
> >
> > While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous
pot
> > shot.
>
> FWIW, it was offered and taken (by me, at least) in jest.
Oh I'm sure it was. I probably have thin skin too.
However, given what I saw as an unfairly mocking (and even condescending)
misrepresentation of my presentation, the joking innuendo was seen by me as
more condescension and tantamount to telling tales out of school.
I'm much more shy and retiring than I probably seem (I probably seem more
extroverted than I really am). And as open as I seem I view my privacy as
extremely sacrosanct.
So, I am very interesting in talking about a topic but not becoming the
topic; i.e. I don't like it when it gets personal and people want to talk
about me personally.
If the same joking comment had come from a trusted friend, I would take it
as a good natured needling (that's what friends are for ;-) . But coming
from someone that doesn't know me from Adam behind my back (I never normally
read this list or usenet), in a public forum that gets archived forevermore
and can turn up in search engines; well that's a bit of a different story,
and I bet you'd see it more my way if you were on the receiving end of a
barb rather than being a disinterested observer. (Though you might handle
it better than I did, I bet you dollars to donuts you might have some
colorful words for the sender of such a barb privately.)
I came across the review quite by accident and it really made my blood
pressure go up!
However, the person in question and I have exchanged e-mails privately and
there is no rancor: I'll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding and try to
develop thicker skin, but I do insist that the internet, and the LISP
community in particular, need to have better civility and respect. I've
seen jihads on language groups where lofty individuals behave like children
and post privately received flaming e-mails into public forums just to
humiliate opponents they got angry at. That's truly pathetic. That makes
the entire community look bad.
The LISP community can't afford that sort of thing: a small, marginalized
community must be more guarded against infighting and divisions by being a
cut above the general populace in civility and decency, with a realization
that everyone in the LISP community is an ambassador for LISP.
Nuf' said (I'll get off the soap box now!).
> btw, thx for opening my eyes to JavaScript.
I assume by that you mean you didn't know previously how close to LISP it
was. If so, you're welcome. That's what I'm here for! =:0)
> I was unaware that the Java
> in front was a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing deal.
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> I came across the review quite by accident...
So in all your writings and talks about Lisp you never had the intention
of checking out this newsgroup to see what is really going on in the
Lisp community? Amazing!
"Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom> wrote in message
·······························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> >
> > I came across the review quite by accident...
>
> So in all your writings and talks about Lisp you never had the intention
> of checking out this newsgroup to see what is really going on in the
> Lisp community? Amazing!
Usually just through searches.
And after the conference, I had other things to do and catch up on rather
than look through here.
Usenet and e-mail can be enormous time sinks.
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <87y984gdto.fsf@noetbook.telent.net>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
[closures]
> Javascript has them, and that is no small thing. (Perl does too, but has no
> object system, and features dynamic scoping. Java and Python don't have
> closures.)
Perl has a perfectly good object system. If it depends a little more
on convention and a little less on compiler-enforced syntax for object
semantics, then at least the conventions are pretty sane. It also has
lexical scope (I'm not sure if you're unaware of "my" or you consider
that even providing dynamic scope as an _option_ is a bad thing)
Java kinda sorta has closures in the shape of inner classes, but I
agree they're basically too painful to be useful in practice.
I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
scoping works in that language, which suggests that (a) it's messy,
and (b) eventually I'm just going to have to learn the damn language
myself. It does have a toplevel in which one can define new functions
- an improvement on the mozilla javascript console, at least.
> I never claimed that LISP is just closures. I made it very clear that there
> are many aspects of LISP beyond closures that are worth having; in
> particular a simple syntax. I even mentioned that Javascript needs macros
> but if it had macros it would be a mess because of the complicated syntax.
>
> The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
> it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
> world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
> better left to Sisyphus).
This is where I don't understand your approach. Language extensibility
via macros is a killer feature for Lisp, but it's exactly the feature
that javascript, say, would resist, because as you've identified
above, it'd be a mess. That suggests to me that we can't turn
javascript into lisp. So how exactly _do_ we leverage this door?
(My parents used to tell me off for swinging on door handles, fwiw)
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
Google searches suggest to me that your major involvement with Lisp
tends more towards Scheme than CL, and so perhaps you have a different
perspective on this than the majority of comp.lang.lisp posters (who
are as far as I can tell, tending more towards CL). I don't see much
if any language R&D going on here; I see exactly these discussions and
initiatives to promote Lisp in a broader market. Look at CLiki (URL
in my .signature), for example, and tell me what the proportion of new
language feature proposals is compared to the number of "boring"
web/database/corba/graphics/networking/etc glue libraries.
I concede that Google searches are a pretty blunt instrument, though,
so if I've mischaracterised your persopective on that basis, I
apologize. What kinds of initiatives would you like to see the Lisp
community get involved in? I'm looking for concrete suggestions.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> scoping works in that language,
OK, what do you *want* to know?
Cheers,
M.
--
if-you-need-your-own-xxx.py-you-know-where-to-shove-it<wink>-ly
y'rs - tim
-- Tim Peters dishes out versioning advice on python-dev
Michael Hudson <···@python.net> writes:
> Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
>
> > I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> > scoping works in that language,
>
> OK, what do you *want* to know?
Is it lexical or dynamic?
Version 2.x fixed one very nasty and uninituitive aspect of the
scoping issues in Python (version 1.x), but I do not know if you can
the classify the language in either categories yet.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th 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'.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245811705138224@naggum.no>
* Marco Antoniotti
| Version 2.x fixed one very nasty and uninituitive aspect of the scoping
| issues in Python (version 1.x), but I do not know if you can the classify
| the language in either categories yet.
Is there not some kind of mission statement for Python that could be used
as a predictor, at least, of what Python may eventually end up with? Or
have they optimized for unsearchable judgments and ways past finding out?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Now showing on CNN: Harry Potter and the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <pcowunnkov4.fsf@thoth.math.ntnu.no>
+ Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no>:
| Is there not some kind of mission statement for Python that could be
| used as a predictor, at least, of what Python may eventually end up
| with? Or have they optimized for unsearchable judgments and ways
| past finding out?
They have PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals?) some of which will make
it into the language. Guido of course has the last word, but PEPs are
regularly discussed on comp.lang.python, and following that group is
probably the best way to find out which way the language is heading.
(I no longer read c.l.py, as I don't use the language much anymore and
the amount of traffic there has become overwhelming anyway - so things
may have changed.)
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Yes it works in practice - but does it work in theory?
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> Michael Hudson <···@python.net> writes:
>
> > Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> >
> > > I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> > > scoping works in that language,
> >
> > OK, what do you *want* to know?
>
> Is it lexical or dynamic?
Hah. Well, the namespaces that are searched by a given look-up are
determined lexically, though the names in all of them are not known at
compile time.
There's nothing like CL's dynamic variables.
> Version 2.x fixed one very nasty and uninituitive aspect of the
> scoping issues in Python (version 1.x), but I do not know if you can
> the classify the language in either categories yet.
Pre-2.1, there were only three namespaces that were ever searched for
a name: the local namespace (which is determined lexically), the
"global" namespace (i.e. the namespace of the (lexically) enclosing
module, which although determined dynamically doesn't in practice
change frequently) and the "built-in" namespace (which is a little
like the CL package -- it contains stuff you expect to be "always
there").
Post-2.1, intermediate lexically enclosing namespaces (contents
determined at compile time) are also searched.
It's easier to use than explain...
Cheers,
M.
--
41. Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but
withstand progress.
-- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> scoping works in that language, which suggests that (a) it's messy,
> and (b) eventually I'm just going to have to learn the damn language
> myself. It does have a toplevel in which one can define new functions
> - an improvement on the mozilla javascript console, at least.
Python has
- one "builtin" scope;
- one scope per module;
- one scope per class (note: *not* per instance);
- one scope per function or method invocation.
Scopes nest lexically as in Lisp.
If a variable is assigned to within some scope, it is
assumed to be bound there (and a binding is made if
there wasn't one already). The only way to prevent
this is by declaring it "global" within the same
scope, in which case it is (throughout that scope)
assumed to live in the current module instead. One
consequence of this is that it is impossible to
assign to a variable inherited from a lexically
containing scope.
If a variable is not assigned to within some scope,
it is looked up in lexically containing scopes, starting
with the innermost. After that, it's looked for at
module scope. Again, a "global" declaration will make it
go directly to module scope.
All lookups at module scope check the builtin scope too.
Operations that do explicit evaluation (the "exec"
statement, and the "eval", "input" and "execfile"
functions) share the scope of the invoking context.
Things that don't look like they're in any module
(e.g., stuff you type at the interactive prompt)
are really in a module called "__main__".
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
"Daniel Barlow" <···@telent.net> wrote in message
···················@noetbook.telent.net...
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> This is where I don't understand your approach. Language extensibility
> via macros is a killer feature for Lisp, but it's exactly the feature
> that javascript, say, would resist, because as you've identified
> above, it'd be a mess. That suggests to me that we can't turn
> javascript into lisp. So how exactly _do_ we leverage this door?
I've outlined some of this in my paper (are the proceedings out yet)?
Program transformations from LISP to less pure, more mucked up syntaxes.
Even in a mucked up syntax, I still think macros are worth having.
Propose syntax changes/extensions to the standards committees.
I.e. alternative, functional operator syntaxes (as extensions); even if
programmers didn't use them, macros could.
If you supported Javascript via LISP syntax and had a converter to convert
it to C style syntax, the gap could slowly be closed up.
If the LISP world supported browsers/listeners that supported DHTML
standards and supported both SchemeScript and Javascript; the
transformations between the two would become less painful as they met in the
middle.
If script blocks in both languages were supported (as they are for VBScript
and Javascript), Javascript programmers could use LISP browsers supporting
W3C compliant standards and then slowly branch out to LISP at their own
pace.
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> Google searches suggest to me that your major involvement with Lisp
> tends more towards Scheme than CL,
I've used Common LISP in the past; but prefer Scheme, which I view as more
pure, lighter, more ubiquitous, less expensive, and more of a lingua franca.
I haven't worked for an employer for a very long time that uses Common LISP.
Most employers I've seen (including think tanks!) are dumping LISP and Macs
as fast as they possibly can. (Cost is not a concern for them when getting
rid of LISP and Macs!)
I want to be extremely mainstream; that leaves no room in my world for CL,
however I think it's a wonderful and industrial strength LISP. I am all in
favor of it.
But I don't see CL as being as good a bet for browser scripting, students,
and home users. Sorry! I'm interested in solutions for the masses.
> I don't see much
> if any language R&D going on here;
I answered this in another post, but to recap: I was refering to R&D of a
theoretical nature (lambda calculus, combinators, denotational semantics).
Those are extremely important but more esoteric offshoots are less
interesting to me at this time given LISP's marginalized status.
For instance, I'd rather see more papers on marketing LISP rather than
pondering whether the Milner Mycroft Calculus is tractable.
> What kinds of initiatives would you like to see the Lisp
> community get involved in? I'm looking for concrete suggestions.
Did you attend my talk?
I'd like to see all LISP vendors subsume the browser metaphor (is that the
right word?) into listeners that support W3C DHTML standards. That way LISP
would have DHTML in common with the rest of the world and if LISP browsers
supported Javascript that would make LISP accessible to non-LISP programmers
that care not a whit about LISP. (They might want such a
browser/environment just for web development or application writing; the
fact that it has LISP in it is foder for rainy day discoveries of LISP at
their liesure.)
When people want LISP products not because they use LISP but because the
LISP products are awesome; that's when LISP becomes very accessible and
ecumenical. The LISP market niche is too small if it's targeted purely to
LISP programmers.
I'd also like to see Scheme as a scripting language in a browser that also
supports Javascript (using the exact same engine).
I outlined ways that Javascript could be cleaned up without breaking
existing code, that would allow Javascript and SchemeScript to converge on
merely be different syntaxes or front ends for the same underlying engine.
This would then make LISP accessible: I see browsers as a poor man's
listener and all around development environment, complete with GUI making
facilities. (They are already being used that way; I'm simply suggesting
the insertion of LISP into the mix so that LISP can get in on the action.)
I'd also like to see LISP participation in DHTML standards to provide an
influx of good taste; and DHTML standards adopted by LISP for writing GUIs
so that LISP has more in common with the neighborhood kids. Using CLIM
while the rest of the world is using DHTML doesn't help LISP popularity.
This is the time to get in on the ground floor of DHTML standards before
they become set in stone.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245839631070107@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| I want to be extremely mainstream
:
| I'm interested in solutions for the masses.
There are two ways to do this. The first is to become indistinguishable
from everything else so the masses pick you at random and generally by
mistake. The second is to stand out and let the masses come to you. The
first option appears to be irrelevant. That must mean you believe you can
make the masses come your way. If you believe this, you should realize
that it does not matter what the "mainstream" and the masses are /today/,
because you can change that. Any position between these two is failure.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Now showing on CNN: Harry Potter and the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Andre van Meulebrouck
> | I want to be extremely mainstream
> :
> | I'm interested in solutions for the masses.
>
> There are two ways to do this. The first is to become indistinguishable
> from everything else so the masses pick you at random and generally by
> mistake.
You lost me there. I have no idea what you're talking about.
> The second is to stand out and let the masses come to you.
Absolutely not; in fact that sounds very arrogant.
The idea you're espousing typically goes like this:
Build a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door.
I don't think it works like that at all!
You must go OUT to the market rather than thinking the market will come to
you!
You must find out where they live and live there too.
You must find out what the market place wants and provide it; and provide it
better than anyone else is providing it.
You must have a willingness to serve rather than a desire to work with cool
technology (the latter is icing on the cake if you can get it).
You must convince customers you are there when they need you; and you are
there in force with staying power so that they don't need to worry about you
going out of business and leaving them high and dry.
You don't want to STAND OUT; you want to FIT IN, GET ON BOARD, and play ball
with the neighborhood kids.
You do not want to be a LISP snob or a prima Dona!
> The
> first option appears to be irrelevant. That must mean you believe you
can
> make the masses come your way. If you believe this, you should realize
> that it does not matter what the "mainstream" and the masses are
/today/,
> because you can change that. Any position between these two is failure.
How about this:
1) Determine what the juggernaut is.
2) Climb on board and ride the juggernaut rather than being crushed by it.
3) Try steering the juggernaut from inside the juggernaut rather than from
outside.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245849938542275@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| You lost me there. I have no idea what you're talking about.
I find it rather alarming that you first realize this but then blithely
assume that you understood my second point, which was evidently even more
lost on you than the first.
| You don't want to STAND OUT; you want to FIT IN, GET ON BOARD, and play
| ball with the neighborhood kids.
|
| You do not want to be a LISP snob or a prima Dona!
I now realize that you have been hurt in some way that is orthogonal to
any programming language issues and that your personal fear of being
different is underlying your decisions. I have absolutely no such fear
and I cannot even relate to the experience. Life is not some democratic
experiment where people agree to go and die if they are voted down, and
neither is it the converse: You do not tell other people to go and die if
they disagree with you. But this will probably also be lost on you, given
the frantic tone of your response, so I have no intention of changing your
mind on this. (Which reminds me that I should finish that response to
Pascal Costanza...)
Anyway, who else have succeeded, using your proposed methodology of
letting somebody else take all your important decisions?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Now showing on CNN: Harry Potter and the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Andre van Meulebrouck
> | You lost me there. I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> I find it rather alarming that you first realize this but then blithely
> assume that you understood my second point, which was evidently even
more
> lost on you than the first.
Oh I think I understood your second point quite well; I just disagree with
it.
Your first point I thought was incomprehensible; and apparently you didn't
wish to elaborate on it.
> | You don't want to STAND OUT; you want to FIT IN, GET ON BOARD, and play
> | ball with the neighborhood kids.
> |
> | You do not want to be a LISP snob or a prima Dona!
>
> I now realize that you have been hurt in some way that is orthogonal to
> any programming language issues and that your personal fear of being
> different is underlying your decisions.
That's absolutely absurd! Your dime story psychological analysis is
ridicules.
We have all, to some degree, been burned by various things.
Ultimately however, I go by my logic and what my logic tells me. My bad
experiences make me more cautious; but they do not color my thinking and
cause me to miss any opportunities or make bad decisions. I temper
everything with logic and analysis.
I don't have any fear of being different. Did you read my other postings on
this thread?
My coding style in Javascript is very unique. I haven't yet met anyone else
using closures in Javascript; but I use them with wild abandon and pioneer
my own unique way using LISP concepts!
I'm about as different as I can possibly be from others in the LISP
community. Do I bow down to the majority view of the LISP community? NO!
I dare to be different. In fact, I'm getting beaten up on this list lately
because of my maverick positions within the LISP community!
So don't lecture me about being different! In fact I dare say the reason
for your tone with me is precisely because I am so different from others in
the LISP community and I don't tow any of the LISP community's party
lines!!!
My comments on this thread are born of my analysis of marketing issues; it
is marketing issues that the LISP community is worst at, IMO.
Your comment above about "programming language issues" is revealing.
The issues LISP faces aren't programming language issues at this juncture.
They are marketing and survival issues! That is what I think you need to
get clear on.
> Life is not some democratic
> experiment where people agree to go and die if they are voted down,
I never said it was.
I'm not saying we should defer to the democratic masses on programming
issues; I'm simply saying I care very much about survival and want to see
the LISP community leverage their knowledge towards winning in the market
place for a change.
And I outlined strategies for doing so.
When all the chips are stacked in your corner; you then have a lot more
power and freedom than when you are subjugated.
I'm interested in seeing LISP get out of subjugated status.
I'm tired of seeing employers dump LISP (and they are dumping it very fast,
those that still have any LISP code left). LISP is *extremely*
marginalized; and I don't like being marginalized.
> Anyway, who else have succeeded, using your proposed methodology of
> letting somebody else take all your important decisions?
I believe what you mean by that comment is you think my posture of wanting
to get on board with conventional technologies and work with them (rather
than working against them) is letting somebody else "take" (sic) all my
important decisions.
Assuming that's what you mean; I disagree completely with your assessment of
what I'm doing: I don't feel I'm abdicating and letting someone else make
my decisions.
When I look out on the world, I only see this world; not some world I'd
prefer it to be. Given that; I choose to live in this world, the way it is,
as best I can. It's all about strategy.
This harkens back to age old debates about what it means to compromise
versus selling out; I covered these issues very deeply and thoroughly in my
paper.
Frankly, after my experience of writing and presenting my paper; then
listening to the feedback, I'm not as optimistic for the LISP community as I
am for the conventional world.
I'm at the point now where I think it's time to give up on trying to make
LISP the language win; and it's time instead to start dismantling LISP and
packaging up the pieces to export out into the conventional world. LISP In
Small Pieces, indeed! (Awesome book, BTW.)
In other words, the concepts of LISP can be applied to the conventional
world and live on in the genes of other technologies; but I'm much less
optimistic about LISP the language ever winning in its current form.
The reason why is because the LISP community truly seems to have absolutely
no interest in winning in the market place and seems quite content to remain
marginalized (something I cannot personally live with).
And that's okay! For them, that's okay; my path must be a different path.
Some groups and cultures look at the world very differently.
The Native Americans were quite content to live along the coast but not try
exploring the oceans in large vessels. The biggest they got were planked
canoes. As a result, there is much of the world they never knew about nor
explored.
Meanwhile other cultures were much more interested in exploration.
I now realize I have very different goals from anyone else I've met in the
LISP community.
Do I bow down to the LISP community and take on their tastes? Or should I
dare to be different and plot my own course??? =:0)
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245940056324503@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| Oh I think I understood your second point quite well; I just disagree
| with it.
I think I am a better judge of that than you are. That you now wish to
fight the author over having understood something where your reply has
given the author ample evidence that you did not, does not bode well.
| Your first point I thought was incomprehensible; and apparently you
| didn't wish to elaborate on it.
You said it yourself: Usenet and email can be time sinks. You appear
much too hasty and unwilling to listen for my taste.
| Ultimately however, I go by my logic and what my logic tells me.
I believe you think you do, but you also think you understood my second
point quite well, which you did not.
| In fact, I'm getting beaten up on this list lately because of my maverick
| positions within the LISP community!
Um, this is also wrong.
| So don't lecture me about being different! In fact I dare say the reason
| for your tone with me is precisely because I am so different from others
| in the LISP community and I don't tow any of the LISP community's party
| lines!!!
If you ultimately go by your logic, what do you use penultimately?
| My comments on this thread are born of my analysis of marketing issues;
| it is marketing issues that the LISP community is worst at, IMO.
Yes, we are, and that make just about any looney tune better than what we
have today. Which is why, sadly, those who think they risk nothing come
to Lisp to risk it.
| Your comment above about "programming language issues" is revealing.
Perhaps you are unaware of how emotional you appear to me, but let me
tell you this: You are /not/ a man of logic. Your emotions do cloud your
reasoning and you only see yourself above the clouds while we mere mortals
see you behind the clouds, and you probably do not see us very well, but
think you do, such as in your first line to me. In this case, you imagine
your clear purpose is to judge other people, not reason with them. Let
me just say that I do not appreciate being judged by people who do not
take the time to undersand what I am talking about.
| The issues LISP faces aren't programming language issues at this
| juncture. They are marketing and survival issues! That is what I think
| you need to get clear on.
It never was unclear before you even started your talk. (I was unable to
attend this conference for health reasons, so this is only to establish a
timeline.)
| I'm tired of seeing employers dump LISP (and they are dumping it very
| fast, those that still have any LISP code left). LISP is *extremely*
| marginalized; and I don't like being marginalized.
This goes directly to my stating that you fear being different. Your
frantic shrieking about "stand out" and "prima dona" are not contradicted.
| I believe what you mean by that comment is you think my posture of
| wanting to get on board with conventional technologies and work with them
| (rather than working against them) is letting somebody else "take" (sic)
| all my important decisions.
Thank you for pointing out the misuse of "take" over "make", a remnant of
my native tongue which I now cannot imagine how slipped in there. But if
you had been a man of reason and sound purpose, you would simply have
written "make" to correct it without making a point of it. You chose to
make a point of it. That alone is revealing of so many things about you.
(Since you are into "revealing" things.)
| Assuming that's what you mean; I disagree completely with your assessment
| of what I'm doing: I don't feel I'm abdicating and letting someone else
| make my decisions.
Of course you do not /feel/ that way, but what was this about ultimately
going by logic? You want on the bandwagon/juggernaut and you do not want
to be marginalized. That is, ipso facto, letting others make your most
important decisions.
| When I look out on the world, I only see this world; not some world I'd
| prefer it to be. Given that; I choose to live in this world, the way it
| is, as best I can. It's all about strategy.
The speech quoted by Thomas Burdick appears to apply in abundance.
| This harkens back to age old debates about what it means to compromise
| versus selling out; I covered these issues very deeply and thoroughly in
| my paper.
I may eventually read it.
| Frankly, after my experience of writing and presenting my paper; then
| listening to the feedback, I'm not as optimistic for the LISP community
| as I am for the conventional world.
Of course you are not. I could have told you that before you started.
| I'm at the point now where I think it's time to give up on trying to make
| LISP the language win; and it's time instead to start dismantling LISP
| and packaging up the pieces to export out into the conventional world.
| LISP In Small Pieces, indeed! (Awesome book, BTW.)
This is the foretold conclusion.
| In other words, the concepts of LISP can be applied to the conventional
| world and live on in the genes of other technologies; but I'm much less
| optimistic about LISP the language ever winning in its current form.
As long as you contrast "win" with "lose", you have already lost. There
is only one winner of the mass market in software, and it is Microsoft.
| The reason why is because the LISP community truly seems to have
| absolutely no interest in winning in the market place and seems quite
| content to remain marginalized (something I cannot personally live with).
Would second best be to your satisfaction or would that be marginalized,
too? How far down the ranking list do you have to go before you are
"marginalized" in your estimate? Or in other words, which is the least
popular non-marginalized programming language? I need this only to
calibrate my judgment of your accuracy of judgment. I fear that you may
lack this quality entirely and only go by your fealings. (That you seem
to think this is /wrong/, is all the more reason to suspect that you do,
and this self-flattering nonsense about ultimately going by logic is a
very loud alarm signal to people who know much more psychology than you
evidently do.)
| I now realize I have very different goals from anyone else I've met in
| the LISP community.
You have only talked and listened for an affirmative nod, not for any of
the serious objections or reasons of your listeners, nor to what their
goals might be. You did not get the nod, thus you assume your /goals/
are different. What if your /means/ were unpalatable to those who have
the same goals? What if your /goals/ are poorly understood by /you/, not
by those who listen to you, who understand them much better than you, but
may also disagree that they are the most important goals? You have not
even made an /attempt/ to listen to what the goals of people here are.
You assume way too much, Andre van Meulebrouck.
| Do I bow down to the LISP community and take on their tastes? Or should
| I dare to be different and plot my own course??? =:0)
You are a man of much contradiction and too little seriousness despite
your very judgmental attitudes. I feel sorry for you. Now go jump on
the bandwagon. I sincerely hope you do not miss it and get run over.
If you should change your personality dramatically and start listening to
individual people, let me know. We have something to talk about, but as
long as you want to be the only one talking, my only desire is to make
you stop talking and defending yourself and /listen/ to other people.
Remember what I said about fearing to be different? You consistently
treat people you talk with as members of some group, not as individuals.
You make conclusions about the community after talking to /me/. I am not
now and never will be the community. If something I say represents the
views of any group of people, it is by accident. I never have paid any
attention to the views of groups of people except that which they have
formally agreed to agree on, such as standards and laws. /Individuals/
matter to me. The masses matter to you. When an individual disagrees
with me, my one and only goal is mutual understanding before I can agree:
to understand that individual and have that individual understand me,
what we agree or disagree with at the end of that process is impossible
to tell. When a group of people does not agree with you, you are willing
to reject it, unless you perceive that group to be the juggernaut of the
market, in which case you change your mind. This, to me, is the textbook
case of one who fears being different and who acts from that fear when he
feels left out a group. But you are /not/ outside any group here. All of
us here are individuals and there are no sides to take, no group consensus
that you have to fight as a whole. People are willing to listen to your
arguments and some of them may change their views on some small point or
other, or maybe their general outlook on things if you are good. This is
what it means to let others come to you, which you completely failed to
understand, but do not even understand that you did because you think
that if it looks like something you could agree with in words, it must be
something you can agree with in meaning. It actually very seldom is.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Doug McNaught
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <m38z01jeei.fsf@abbadon.mcnaught.org>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> Thank you for pointing out the misuse of "take" over "make", a remnant of
> my native tongue which I now cannot imagine how slipped in there.
AFAIK, "to take a decision" is perfectly standard British English.
Americans tend to use "make" instead.
-Doug
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245957899805811@naggum.no>
* Erik Naggum
| Thank you for pointing out the misuse of "take" over "make", a remnant of
| my native tongue which I now cannot imagine how slipped in there.
* Doug McNaught
| AFAIK, "to take a decision" is perfectly standard British English.
| Americans tend to use "make" instead.
FWIW, this did /not/ help. I pronounce my R's in the right place, and
I'm damn proud of it!
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Erik Naggum
> | Thank you for pointing out the misuse of "take" over "make", a remnant of
> | my native tongue which I now cannot imagine how slipped in there.
>
> * Doug McNaught
> | AFAIK, "to take a decision" is perfectly standard British English.
> | Americans tend to use "make" instead.
>
> FWIW, this did /not/ help. I pronounce my R's in the right place, and
> I'm damn proud of it!
Hmm, although some Brits use perverse pronunciation, not all of them
do. And South Asians speak English quite well, using essentially a
British dialect.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCF2176.1070203@nyc.rr.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Erik Naggum
> | Thank you for pointing out the misuse of "take" over "make", a remnant of
> | my native tongue which I now cannot imagine how slipped in there.
>
> * Doug McNaught
> | AFAIK, "to take a decision" is perfectly standard British English.
> | Americans tend to use "make" instead.
>
> FWIW, this did /not/ help. I pronounce my R's in the right place, and
> I'm damn proud of it!
>
A Brit once asked me why I pronounced my Rs. I guess she'd neveh heahd
an Amehican speak befoh. Yeahs later when being instructed in American
Standahd English, I received the same correction.
Who knew?
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
From: Patrick W
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <87isz4kcv0.fsf@key.localdomain>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> A Brit once asked me why I pronounced my Rs. I guess she'd neveh heahd
> an Amehican speak befoh. Yeahs later
^^^^^
A trifle pedantic, old fellow, but I'm shoah you meant 'latuh'.
Patrick W <···········@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> A Brit once asked me why I pronounced my Rs. I guess she'd neveh heahd
>> an Amehican speak befoh. Yeahs later
> ^^^^^
> A trifle pedantic, old fellow, but I'm shoah you meant 'latuh'.
^^^^^^ -- fellah
BTW, the 'r' in 'American' is always voiced.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <aqmp6k$a3v$1@helle.btinternet.com>
Doug McNaught wrote:
> AFAIK, "to take a decision" is perfectly standard British English.
> Americans tend to use "make" instead.
Hmmm. I'm not sure about the use of infinitive form as this sounds
rather odd. However, in the context of the original message, this is
within normal correct usage.
:)w
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCF139D.7090706@nyc.rr.com>
Doug McNaught wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
>
>> Thank you for pointing out the misuse of "take" over "make", a remnant of
>> my native tongue which I now cannot imagine how slipped in there.
>
>
> AFAIK, "to take a decision" is perfectly standard British English.
> Americans tend to use "make" instead.
I was reminded of the affected (here in the US) but acceptable "let's
take lunch" or "take a meeting". Quite catchy, those.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:57:58 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The issues LISP faces aren't programming language issues at this juncture.
> They are marketing and survival issues! That is what I think you need to
Concerning survival issues, note that Lisp has been around for about 44
years, and it's the second oldest language still in use. The same can't be
said of other computing technologies and fads.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:51:15 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I've used Common LISP in the past; but prefer Scheme, which I view as more
> pure, lighter, more ubiquitous, less expensive, and more of a lingua franca.
You prefer "pure" languages, yet you settle for JavaScript as a Lisp
lookalike.
> I want to be extremely mainstream; that leaves no room in my world for CL,
> however I think it's a wonderful and industrial strength LISP. I am all in
> favor of it.
Did you take this quote from Webster's entry for "oxymoron"? :)
> I answered this in another post, but to recap: I was refering to R&D of a
> theoretical nature (lambda calculus, combinators, denotational semantics).
> Those are extremely important but more esoteric offshoots are less
> interesting to me at this time given LISP's marginalized status.
>
> For instance, I'd rather see more papers on marketing LISP rather than
> pondering whether the Milner Mycroft Calculus is tractable.
This, and your reference to the ACM Lisp and Functional Programming
conference, which is now the International Conference on Functional
Programming, strongly suggest that you are out of touch with what goes on
in the Common Lisp world.
In past years, almost no Common Lisp research work about the topics you
mention was presented at those conferences. You probably confuse Common
Lisp with Scheme, whose research community does present work on those
topics at conferences.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4wunnhj3b.fsf@beta.franz.com>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Fred Gilham" <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote in message
> ···················@snapdragon.csl.sri.com...
> > One talk, which I thought was going to be very different, was about
> > what the presenter called `ubiquitous Lisp'. Unfortunately his idea
> > was something like the following: Lisp is really just closures,
> > Javascript has closures, Javascript is everywhere, let's call
> > Javascript "Lisp" and declare victory.
>
> I think that is a gross mischaracterization of my talk.
>
> I'd like to set the record straight.
I unfortunately was not able to attend your talk (I was having severe eye
trouble and couldn't get into the City until after noon each day). I also
want to start by expressing my appreciation that you took the trouble to
give the talk.
However, the "setting the record straight" doesn't really do much for me;
I still see much the same attitude in your clarification as Fred apparently
saw in the talk.
> The conventional world is stealing LISP hubcaps rather than just stealing
> the whole CAR.
Everyone "steals" ideas. In fact, it couldn't gratify the Lisp community
more than to see other langauges learn from them. "Imitation is the most
sincere form of flattery". I suspect that they'll never steal the whole
CDR, though. :-)
> Given that approach, I think the most valuable aspect of
> LISP for a conventional language to acquire is closures (by far!). (If we
> could get only one feature into a conventional language from LISP, that
> would be the feature to shoot for.)
As others have stated, languages are already doing that.
> Javascript has them, and that is no small thing. (Perl does too, but has no
> object system, and features dynamic scoping. Java and Python don't have
> closures.)
>
> That's about as far as I'd agree with your summary.
>
> I never claimed that LISP is just closures. I made it very clear that there
> are many aspects of LISP beyond closures that are worth having; in
> particular a simple syntax. I even mentioned that Javascript needs macros
> but if it had macros it would be a mess because of the complicated syntax.
>
> The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
> it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
> world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
> better left to Sisyphus).
> I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause for
> declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
> encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> conventional languages half way.
This is being done, without abdicating Lisp itself. Instead, we build
bridges between Lisp and other languages, thus making it a great connection
glue even in areas where other languages have found a niche.
> It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible rather
> than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
As was pointed out by another poster, this sentence doesn't ring true, due
to the smashing of the optimism that you do so well in the next (incorrect)
sentence:
> However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
How does a language, which has no hardware coattails to ride behind like
C/C++, but which supports four or five commercial vendors and at least
as many free/opensource vendors, fail mbadly at marketing? Does it need
100% of all markets to be sucessful?
> (For
> instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression based:
> this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope of
> an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
Lisp is gracious to allow XML to languish in its niche, and to help it along
by providing tools for working with and generating XML.
> If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization, perhaps
> it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
> recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to learn
> it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot of
> users, to get those users you must be widespread.
So what is it that you are repeating? What, for example, is JavaScript
learning?
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
What R&D is it that you think is taking Lisp from its primary goal?
> With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
> than it has?
The world is Lisp's market. My wife and I just watched our DVD of a James
Bond video again, and its title says it all - apparently, "The World is
Not Enough".
> I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics have
> been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
> otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
> focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby gathering
> more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting priorities
> straight!
Whose budget are you looking at? My question above still stands, along with
another: What R&D is being squandered away by the Lisp community? And
whose financial health would removing such R&D thus improve?
> Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse trap,
> it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to offer,
> but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
> accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our part.
What part have you been doing? What use of Lisp are you making, and how does
promulgating JavaScript count as "making Lisp acceptable"?
> > Perhaps coincidentally, the
> > speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
>
> While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous pot
> shot.
> First of all it is none of anyone's business what my comings and goings were
> at the conference, leave alone announcing it to the entire world as a matter
> of permanent public record henceforth. I would think conference attendees
> would have much greater respect for the privacy of fellow attendees than
> that.
Well, I just saw it as a simple dig. Perhaps you are more sensitive than you
think. "Methinks thou doest protest too much" - you did make yourself
public by giving a talk.
> Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like LISP
> to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how much
> we are willing to do.
Volunteering to do Lisp work is admirable, and if you enjoy it as a hobby,
that's fine too. But here you are obviously either burnt out on doing either
of these things, and so you should progress to the next step, which is to
actually program Lisp for _money_. That will take the tiredness right out
of you. :-)
> Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
> desiring our time, money, and attention.
And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
serious). Now, some others may respond something like "But it's hard to
get a Lisp job!", or even, "It's _impossible_ to get a Lisp job!". To
those who say it's hard, I say "yes, good things in life are sometimes
hard". And to those who would dare say it's impossible, I say "OK, have
it your way" (in other words, if as a manager I were hiring you, I would
look for a "can do" attitude, and I simply don't see that in such a
statement).
> Gimme a break!
Give yourself a break. Come over to Lisp, and let JavaScript be just
another piece of software that needs to be interfaced to. You'll be
much happier.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <86lm43zk0d.fsf@gondolin.local.net>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
> serious).
Sorry for the "me too" post, but this is just so true that it bears repeating.
And if you can't FIND a lisp job, then MAKE one instead. It's not impossible.
What is great is that once you start using Lisp at work, even when you work
on "non lispy" problems (i.e. things you could equally well do in "standard"
languages), life is still _so_ much better/cleaner/simpler. And pretty soon,
the people around you stop seeing lisp as a niche language and start accepting
it as "a programming language".
This effect is much like what happens(*) when racist people are made to live
or work with people of the unknown race; they discover that those people
are just... well... people.
Stop the Lisp bigotry now! :-)
(*) well, sometimes, when you're lucky.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCC8002.7060407@nyc.rr.com>
Alain Picard wrote:
> This effect is much like what happens(*) when racist people are made to live
> or work with people of the unknown race; they discover that those people
> are just... well... people.
>
> Stop the Lisp bigotry now! :-)
>
>
>
> (*) well, sometimes, when you're lucky.
Caveat sadly well-advised. At least one study showed no such effect.
Seems bigots just filter the experience to let in only things that
support their bias (and I imagine recast non-confirming inputs into
confirming ones). This phenomenon extends beyond bigotry. Folks with any
sort of conviction (such as lost mariners who only think they know where
they are) take great encouragement from any data point supporting them,
meanwhile explain away contradictory inputs. And now I am almost back on
topic in re getting MegaCorp to use Lisp.
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
"Alain Picard" <·······················@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
···················@gondolin.local.net...
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> What is great is that once you start using Lisp at work, even when you
work
> on "non lispy" problems (i.e. things you could equally well do in
"standard"
> languages), life is still _so_ much better/cleaner/simpler. And pretty
soon,
> the people around you stop seeing lisp as a niche language and start
accepting
> it as "a programming language".
Sorry to be a contrarian, but...
If given a choice of doing object oriented Javascript programming versus
procedural LISP (i.e. a LISP system that doesn't have an object system); I'd
opt for Javascript!
There are so many ways in which LISP is being surpassed and falling behind.
I have often been in the situation where I could get an employer to use LISP
if I had wanted to. Why didn't I? Because the database connectivity and
interfacing with other real world aspects of systems just wasn't there. And
partly because the programming expertise wasn't there to read LISP code
(others have to maintain your code while you're gone).
> Stop the Lisp bigotry now! :-)
From the other side of the fence, I like to suggest ending LISP snobbery!
That hurts in LISP's acceptance too.
There is a lot about these issues that cuts both ways.
Sometimes I think if I had to wager on the conventional side becoming more
palatable and LISP-like versus the LISP side becoming more practical,
applied, real world, and viable; I'd wager on the conventional side of the
fence.
No one wants to get fired for suggesting a solution that turns out to be
problematic. People often go with Microsoft for that reason: it's not as
elegant as LISP but they are confident they can get the system working and
have the support they need.
That's the problem to be solved!
At one time the Mac was far better than Windows. IMO, that is no more.
And VB was a nightmare; but now it really is getting much better.
This was another tenant of my paper: it's possible for the ubiquitous thing
to surpass superior technologies by virtue of accumulating huge amounts of
usage data and responding to them incrementally.
> If given a choice of doing object oriented Javascript programming
> versus procedural LISP (i.e. a LISP system that doesn't have an
> object system); I'd opt for Javascript!
Well, I think this is a misconception you have about Lisp. Lisp is
inherently object-oriented, but not in an explicit way. Everything in
Lisp is an object in that everything in Lisp is tagged, so Lisp knows
what functions are applicable to the object.
* (string= "42" 42)
Type-error in KERNEL::OBJECT-NOT-TYPE-ERROR-HANDLER:
42 is not of type (OR BASE-STRING SYMBOL BASE-CHAR)
* (= 42 "42")
Argument X is not a NUMBER: "42".
Lisp knows that the data object 42 is a number and not something that
you can usefully compare for equality with a string, and vice versa.
Thus Lisp implements the most fundamental idea in object-oriented
programming: abstract data types and the operations which apply to
them. (Note, for example, that one would feel pretty foolish
encapsulating something without providing the ability to operate on
it.)
Historically Lisp has tended to shed object systems like a cat sheds
fur. Flavors, LOOPS, CLOS and Garnet's KR are just a few one might
have encountered. Many Lisp textbooks create small but functional
object systems as a matter of course. At the Lisp conference one of
the tutorial presenters gave an example of something he called
`environments' which was simply a C++ or Java style object system
including public and private members. He had written this with a few
pages of Lisp macrology.
The point of this is that object-oriented programming is something
Lisp does naturally. You can whip up your own object system in a page
of code. Lisp can also adopt to any particular style of object
oriented programming someone desires. For example, Flavors is a
message-passing OO system, but CLOS uses generic functions. CLOS uses
classes and instances, but Garnet/KR uses a prototype-instance system.
CLOS even institutionalizes this kind of polymorphism (using the term
in the general sense) with its Meta-Object Protocol.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: the right not to reproduce, no matter what else
you do. PLANNED PARENTHOOD: an organization that helps you plan to
avoid becoming a parent.
"Fred Gilham" <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote in message
···················@snapdragon.csl.sri.com...
>
> > If given a choice of doing object oriented Javascript programming
> > versus procedural LISP (i.e. a LISP system that doesn't have an
> > object system); I'd opt for Javascript!
>
> Well, I think this is a misconception you have about Lisp. Lisp is
> inherently object-oriented, but not in an explicit way. Everything in
> Lisp is an object in that everything in Lisp is tagged, so Lisp knows
> what functions are applicable to the object.
>
> * (string= "42" 42)
I'm well aware of all that. It's a pity the proceedings did not come out
before the conference started, because I address many of the issues you
raised in my paper.
Javascript is exactly the same in that regard. It has the same latent
typing that LISP does, and it appears to do structure sharing and pointers
to heap based objects (and boxing and unboxing) in the same way. In fact,
given a Javascript question; all I have to generally do is imagine how LISP
would handle the situation and sure enough Javascript does it the same way.
It really does seem like Javascript is built on a LISP engine, stripped of
dynamic lists, and given C syntax.
Javascript also promotes from primitive types to proper objects
automatically for you.
For instance, if you have:
var intFoo, strTemp;
intFoo = 3;
strTemp = intFoo.toString() + "suffix";
(I could have been lazy and just done: strTemp = intFoo + "suffix"; and let
the interpreter figure it out for me, but that's pretty ugly and would
defeat my pedagogy here.)
In the above case, I had an integer (primitive type). I can treat it as a
primitive type whenever I want; but I can also appeal to the object oriented
nature of all entities in Javascript and reference methods on those objects.
Internally, Javascript may have to cast that to a proper object wrapper; but
this is done for me just as LISP promotes integers to bignums automatically.
I think that's quite elegant; even more so than many LISPs IMO.
I can also do the same on functions. I covered this in my paper: I make a
lot of anonymous closures. There is one problem with them however: they
have no name.
So, if things blow up I can use stack primitives to run through the stack
and create a stack trace for me. In order to have a stack trace that does
not look like this:
anonymous < anonymous < anonymous < anonymous
I can literally attach names to anonymous closures by appealing to their
object oriented nature.
var funFoo;
funFoo = function(x) { return x; };
Although I bound that anonymous closure with funFoo, in a stack trace, it
will still be anonymous. However, I can now do this:
funFoo.name = "This is a really long descriptive name for function foo";
Try doing that in Scheme!!!
In addition Javascript supports the this keyword. I like that feature! And
the prototype. (Note: I went over the pluses and minuses of the prototype
system in my presentation and created a scant few lines of code to give me a
nice system of inheritance and overcome the shortcomings of the prototype
system that is built in by leveraging closures.)
Given that and closures, I can do very simple object centric programming.
In fact, if I were to (one day when I'm not so busy) create SchemeScript, I
would model its object system after the one I currently use in Javascript.
(I would also review Meroon in "LISP In Small Pieces" for ideas too.)
If a language doesn't have a pervasive, simple, built in object system (as I
said in my paper and presentation) there is a temptation to program in a
procedural way.
The problem with a lot of LISPs is you have to roll your own object system
and everyone will do it differently (if they will bother at all). It's nice
to agree on at least a paltry set of primitives to be built in for the
purpose to get everyone on the same page.
Or, you have a very powerful object system that people tend not to use for
trivial applications because it would seem like overkill.
So, given a Scheme in which I'd have to use closures to roll my own object
system versus Javascript with its simple built in system; I actually do
prefer to use Javascript!
And that's a frequent complaint I have with LISP code: most of the LISP
code examples I see are NOT object oriented; they are procedural. In fact,
the much touted Structure and Interpretation book features code that is too
procedural for my tastes: all my Javascript code is vastly more object
oriented and makes use of instances.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245941242985515@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| The problem with a lot of LISPs is you have to roll your own object
| system and everyone will do it differently (if they will bother at all).
If you want to address shortcomings of Scheme, the newsgroup is
comp.lang.scheme and their community also sports conferences.
"LISP" these days is Common Lisp.
| So, given a Scheme in which I'd have to use closures to roll my own
| object system versus Javascript with its simple built in system; I
| actually do prefer to use Javascript!
So would many of us Common Lisp programmers.
BTW, your eager use of the exclamation point makes it very hard to take
you seriously. It is hard to imagine a person who makes an exclamation,
with three exclamation points in some places, willing to listen to any
argument that could change his mind, as it would tend to give the yeller
the misconception that people would think he made a fool of himself by
yelling out something that was false. Therefore, the more exclamation
points, the less point there is in trying to talk to the person using them.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:37:25 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The problem with a lot of LISPs is you have to roll your own object system
> and everyone will do it differently (if they will bother at all). It's nice
Which LISPs?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245845942476557@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| There are so many ways in which LISP is being surpassed and falling behind.
That is a amazingly meaningless sentence.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Now showing on CNN: Harry Potter and the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Andre van Meulebrouck
> | There are so many ways in which LISP is being surpassed and falling
behind.
>
> That is a amazingly meaningless sentence.
I think you meant "an amazingly", not "a amazingly".
I still stand 100% by my English. I am a native speaker of English having
been born in this country and I have ample background in linguistics.
I will make the sentence more verbose for you:
There are so many ways in which LISP is being surpassed [by conventional
technologies] and LISP is falling behind [conventional technologies].
Those clauses mean almost the same thing; but with a subtle difference.
Conventional technologies are coming up with new innovations and moving
ahead, beyond LISP (in some cases).
In other cases, there are ways in which all languages must make constant
evolutionary progress as the industry changes. In some of those cases I
think LISP is lagging behind: it isn't keeping pace. That's what happens
when you are extremely marginalized and don't have the enormous user base.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCE7C57.6060100@nyc.rr.com>
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> I think you meant "an amazingly", not "a amazingly".
Point of order. This is usenet, plz spare us your ridiculous dime store
editing.[1]
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
·····················@nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> > I think you meant "an amazingly", not "a amazingly".
>
> Point of order. This is usenet, plz spare us your ridiculous dime store
> editing.[1]
It was meant not as an editing correction but as a jab to point out the
hypocrisy of correcting my grammar (which was fine) while stumbling on his
grammar/spelling. I just didn't put a smiley face next to it.
I was truly baffled by what the objection was that he was making. I still
don't get it.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3d6pdqqll.fsf@cley.com>
* Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> It was meant not as an editing correction but as a jab to point out the
> hypocrisy of correcting my grammar (which was fine) while stumbling on his
> grammar/spelling. I just didn't put a smiley face next to it.
He wasn't correcting your grammar. He made no comment at all on your
grammar. He did comment on the semantics of the sentence.
> I was truly baffled by what the objection was that he was making. I still
> don't get it.
Clearly.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245940687064801@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| It was meant not as an editing correction but as a jab to point out the
| hypocrisy of correcting my grammar (which was fine) while stumbling on
| his grammar/spelling. I just didn't put a smiley face next to it.
It was not your grammar that was corrected, it was the contents. As in
the word "meaning", which occurs at several levels, not just grammar.
| I was truly baffled by what the objection was that he was making. I
| still don't get it.
But still you think it was the grammar and make stupid comments about
hypocrisy. Most people, when they realize that they do not understand
something, refrain from taking such actions as would render them idiots
in the views of others, if not themselves. You obviously do not think
you have anything to lose, and this is what your behavior tells me that I
should take to heart about you. People who have nothing to lose, also
have very little to give others. In an exchange between two intelligent
and thinking people, what matters is what they can give eachother, not
how little they have to lose by ridiculing the other part for typos and
minor mistakes.
But you are not an intelligent and thinking man, Andre van Meulebrouck.
You may think you ultimately go by logic, but until you get to your
ultimate tool, you are one heck of an emotional and jugdmental person.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> It was not your grammar that was corrected, it was the contents. As in
> the word "meaning", which occurs at several levels, not just grammar.
I still stand 100% by my sentence as meaningful.
You have given a huge diatribe, but not a single defense as to why you
considered it "meaningless".
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245940336552920@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| I think you meant "an amazingly", not "a amazingly".
So this is the chosen level of your communication with other people.
| I still stand 100% by my English. I am a native speaker of English having
| been born in this country and I have ample background in linguistics.
Hurrah for you! (That is what you wanted, now, was it not?)
However, you do not understand the word "meaningless", yet. It relates
to the word "meaning" and not possessing that quality, and is not a
matter of linguistics, but a matter of conceptual clarity, which you lack.
Enjoy your talking to other people. I want to enjoy talking with people.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Alain Picard" <·······················@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
···················@ibook.local....
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> > If given a choice of doing object oriented Javascript programming versus
> > procedural LISP (i.e. a LISP system that doesn't have an object system);
I'd
> > opt for Javascript!
>
> As most posters in this forum, when I write Lisp, I mean
> ANSI Common Lisp. And it _does_ have an object system, so the
> above argument seems to me meaningless. Certainly, I would argue
> that I prefer to write in CL than in Javascript; if we can't agree
> that far, well, there is not much point for a discussion.
Of course! However:
1) Many only use CL's object system for big applications. For smaller
applications don't a lot of people revert back to writing procedural code?
2) Many Scheme programmers write procedurally.
#2 is due to: if you don't have a pervasive, simple, built in object system
and you have to roll your own, that's often when happens (or people roll
their own in very different ways).
> > I have often been in the situation where I could get an employer to use
LISP
> > if I had wanted to. Why didn't I? Because the database connectivity
and
> > interfacing with other real world aspects of systems just wasn't there.
>
> Well, SQL bindings and CORBA are all getting pretty mature, now.
> But I know what you're saying.
How good are LISP systems at interfacing with Windows systems and COM
objects? I know some systems do it and are constantly evolving; but what is
your assessment as to how solid support for COM and Windows networking is?
Can you make ActiveX components using Allegro CL? (Last I checked, you
couldn't.)
It seems like the best thing to add to a Windows network is another Windows
machine if you want the least amount of headaches. That's the problem.
Integration!
> > > Stop the Lisp bigotry now! :-)
> >
> > From the other side of the fence, I like to suggest ending LISP
snobbery!
> > That hurts in LISP's acceptance too.
>
> I doubt that very much. To first approximation, nobody _knows_
> about Lisp, so any alleged snobbery can only be a second order
> effect. When I tell people I do Lisp, they never say: Oh, that's
> a great language, but only used by insufferable eggheads (arguably true).
> They say: Does that still exist? Or, Isn't that terribly slow?
> or one of the myriads other common myths.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant that many LISP programmers look down
their nose at conventional technologies as if they are too far beneath the
dignity of LISP programmers and unworthy of the attention of LISP
programmers.
Have you ever seen a kid that won't play with the neighborhood kids because
they think the neighborhood kids are a bunch of morons and it would be
beneath their dignity to even talk to them? Many LISP programmers come
across that way to people in the conventional world. That's what I'm
talking about.
I know some LISP programmers that wouldn't dream of working with Microsoft
technology and other "inferior" technologies; or they do so but they
complain vehemently and constantly about how "brain dead" those "silly"
technologies are.
That just isn't going to open doors anywhere! That isn't being what I'd
call a good "ambassador for LISP".
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <S7Bz9.53$gc5.103797@news.uswest.net>
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> "Alain Picard" <·······················@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> ···················@ibook.local....
>> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> 1) Many only use CL's object system for big applications. For smaller
> applications don't a lot of people revert back to writing procedural code?
Yes. And so what? Not every application and/or part of an application is
programmed best in an OO style. I speak from experience here as I have
programmed in pure OO languages (Smalltalk, anyone?) and - surprise - even
within the Smalltalk pure-OO world, a lot of the code looks suspiciously
procedural.
> 2) Many Scheme programmers write procedurally.
And many write functionally. Again, so what?
>
> #2 is due to: if you don't have a pervasive, simple, built in object
> #system
> and you have to roll your own, that's often when happens (or people roll
> their own in very different ways).
It doesn't matter. Most of the OO systems that have been rolled have
similar capabilities. It's the thinking, not the standardization that
matters.
> It seems like the best thing to add to a Windows network is another
> Windows
> machine if you want the least amount of headaches. That's the problem.
> Integration!
Integration is a problem. But it's no insurmountable and only has to be
done once. Most people don't realize that this "Integration" is only a
small part of any particular application. Tying yourself down to a less
productive language because a small amount of the task is simple to do in
it is extraordinarily sub-optimal. In fact, it's the lazy and slow thing
to do rather than the smart and fast thing.
> No, that's not what I meant. I meant that many LISP programmers look down
> their nose at conventional technologies as if they are too far beneath the
> dignity of LISP programmers and unworthy of the attention of LISP
> programmers.
Well, yes. In most cases, the technologies are less than worthy because
most of them have already been done in Lisp and either accepted or rejected
for good reason. Why don't you consider that most of these languages are
re-inventing wheels and ask why they waste their time doing that?
> Many LISP programmers come
> across that way to people in the conventional world. That's what I'm
> talking about.
Why? Because we refuse to fawn upon programmers who re-invent odd-shaped
wheels and start cults of personality to promote them? thanks, but I'll
stick with the round one I have.
> I know some LISP programmers that wouldn't dream of working with Microsoft
> technology and other "inferior" technologies; or they do so but they
> complain vehemently and constantly about how "brain dead" those "silly"
> technologies are.
First of all, most of us "LISP programmers" have day jobs where we use
"standard technology" - including Microsoft "technology" - and know full
well the benefits and limitations therein. In fact, I'd venture to say
that the knowledge about non-Lisp technology in the Lisp community is much
higher than the knowledge of Lisp technology in the non-Lisp using
community. Why do you believe that our arguments stem from ignorance of
the technology?
> That just isn't going to open doors anywhere! That isn't being what I'd
> call a good "ambassador for LISP".
Well, you're reinforcing the opinion of this Lisp community member that
non-Lispers are a bunch of rubes that come in and spout off without really
knowing the territory. I don't feel that I lose much by not knowing this
kind of person. You're a lousy ambassador for your viewpoint, too. So
there. Now can we stop the namecalling and talk about (a) why you think
that Lisp needs to be promoted, (b) why you think that the current
Perl-/VB-using person is a good target for evangelization, and (c) what
technological items you believe that Lisp lacks and why we need them?
faa
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> 1) Many only use CL's object system for big applications. For smaller
> applications don't a lot of people revert back to writing procedural code?
If you have to ask this, then clearly you don't know. Therefore, your
statement that many use CLOS only for big applications is a statement
made out of ignorance.
"Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote in message
··················@beta.franz.com...
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> > The conventional world is stealing LISP hubcaps rather than just
stealing
> > the whole CAR.
>
> Everyone "steals" ideas.
Right, that's good. It's just frustrating to see them steal some of the
more trivial things rather than the meatier things; or reproduce LISP wheels
in inferior ways.
> In fact, it couldn't gratify the Lisp community
> more than to see other langauges learn from them.
Agreed.
> > Given that approach, I think the most valuable aspect of
> > LISP for a conventional language to acquire is closures (by far!). (If
we
> > could get only one feature into a conventional language from LISP, that
> > would be the feature to shoot for.)
>
> As others have stated, languages are already doing that.
Agreed. Thus my contention to help the process along.
> > I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause
for
> > declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
> > encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> > conventional languages half way.
>
> This is being done, without abdicating Lisp itself.
As I made clear in both my paper and presentation; I don't want to see LISP
give up its essence in the name of compromise.
However, I don't know what you would point to as efforts on the LISP side to
bridge the gap to the conventional world, so I can't comment further.
> Instead, we build
> bridges between Lisp and other languages, thus making it a great
connection
> glue even in areas where other languages have found a niche.
I'm happy to hear that, but haven't seen anything yet that I'd consider very
ubiquitous.
> > It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible
rather
> > than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
>
> As was pointed out by another poster, this sentence doesn't ring true, due
> to the smashing of the optimism that you do so well in the next
(incorrect)
> sentence:
I fail to see how those are not reconciled.
Some battles have been lost. Some can still be won. I wanted to focus on
the latter rather than the former.
> > However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> > LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
>
> How does a language, which has no hardware coattails to ride behind like
> C/C++, but which supports four or five commercial vendors and at least
> as many free/opensource vendors, fail mbadly at marketing? Does it need
> 100% of all markets to be sucessful?
I found the above a bit obtuse to parse, but assuming I'm following you...
LISP should not need hardware coattails. I don't get that at all. LISP
should be able to run on stock hardware. The hardware is out there, it's
cheap, it's plentiful, it's powerful enough. Compiler technology is awesome
these days. What's the problem?
> > (For
> > instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression
based:
> > this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope
of
> > an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
>
> Lisp is gracious to allow XML to languish in its niche, and to help it
along
> by providing tools for working with and generating XML.
Why didn't LISP lead the way in the first place so that we never had to see
XML? Or HTML?
> > If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization,
perhaps
> > it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
> > recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to
learn
> > it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot
of
> > users, to get those users you must be widespread.
>
> So what is it that you are repeating? What, for example, is JavaScript
> learning?
Usage data by users. Lots of users, using lots of machines, using lots of s
oftware to amass huge volumes of real world experience data.
The kind of data you cannot get by doing all the upfront thinking you can in
a lab.
Finding out the types of things you missed in the lab or didn't think of or
couldn't even imagine.
It's like planning a trip: at some point you must just go and learn by
doing. There are limits to how much you can plan or even imagine about what
you'll encounter along the way.
Testers and users are wonderful. The more the merrier.
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> What R&D is it that you think is taking Lisp from its primary goal?
I'm answering this for the 3rd time, so I'll be brief. I'd like to see
applied R&D supplant more theoretical R&D until better financial stability
is arrived at. Then, more esoteric directions are okay to pursue once
again.
> > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
market
> > than it has?
>
> The world is Lisp's market. My wife and I just watched our DVD of a James
> Bond video again, and its title says it all - apparently, "The World is
> Not Enough".
???
> > I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics
have
> > been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
> > otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if
LISP
> > focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby
gathering
> > more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting
priorities
> > straight!
>
> Whose budget are you looking at? My question above still stands, along
with
> another: What R&D is being squandered away by the Lisp community? And
> whose financial health would removing such R&D thus improve?
I think pondering estorery when your house is burning down is not a good
idea.
I think getting your house in order should be a higher priority.
> > Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse
trap,
> > it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to
offer,
> > but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
> > accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our
part.
>
> What part have you been doing?
Did you attend my talk???
Writing, education, participation in fixing bugs and suggesting
improvements, participating in R&D, beta testing. At some point I want to
participate more closely with the actual standards process rather than going
through intermediaries.
Every day I program in conventional languages I'm working towards the goals
mentioned above (which you are asking me about); as long as I do it in a
LISP style rather than a conventional style. What good is theory if it
isn't applied? What good is LISP if it's not part of your essence? If it's
part of your essence, you don't have to have a LISP job. You can breathe
LISP into the conventional world, everywhere you go, in everything you do.
That is actually much more interesting to me than having a classical LISP
job!
The world can deprive me of LISP tools; but it can never deprive me of the
concepts I've taken from it. Hence, that is ultimate LISP job! That is the
ultimate LISP freedom!
> What use of Lisp are you making,
Using what I've learned from my experience in LISP and applying it to
whatever I am doing in whatever kind of tools I'm being asked to used in the
most mainstream situations I can possibly work in. That is my challenge!
Taking what I've learned from Lambda Calculus, combinators, theory, LISP,
etc.; then applying that to the most mundane situations the world has to
offer, and making a direct difference that can be immediately seen in font
line applications that are as widely deployed in the work-a-day world as I
can possibly get.
That gives me great satisifcation from seeing even the most esoteric ideas
applied to every day life to make life better for the greatest number of
average people as possible. I'm very interested in the plight of the
working stiff and the average joe on the street. If you can't make a
difference to them, what good are your tools???
I feel that if what I learned from LISP can only be applied by using LISP
itself; then I do not understand LISP at all! My knowledge of LISP would
not be applied enough to make me happy.
I would much prefer to apply LISP by writing a LISP interpreter inside a
conventional application than to actually use LISP from a LISP vendor. I'd
learn a great deal more by having to implement the LISP I use rather than
using a LISP someone else wrote.
If given a choice of M*A*S*H style real world, front line programming; or
R&D LISP programming, I might actually prefer, and be happier, in the former
situation; and might not be able to find a satisfying home in the later.
The challenge I'm interested in is applying theory to the mundane rather
than into R&D enclaves.
> and how does
> promulgating JavaScript count as "making Lisp acceptable"?
Did you attend my talk or read my paper? It's all explained in there
already.
My bottom line, non-negotiable starting point is that I only want to use the
most ubiquitous tools that are available (and that is never LISP, at least
not yet); and to be as recession proof as possible, and to be as mainstream
as possible.
From that starting point, I want to apply LISP techniques and concepts (if
not LISP itself) to those situations. That is what I find interesting.
> Well, I just saw it as a simple dig. Perhaps you are more sensitive than
you
> think. "Methinks thou doest protest too much" - you did make yourself
> public by giving a talk.
Giving a public talk means I want my topic to be in the limelight, not me!
I never wanted to be the topic in a personal way. Giving a public talk
should not avail me to pot shots and target practise. If it does; I'm not
interested. I have no interest in a situation with that level of
incivility. I feel we have an obligation to serve. But if being of service
means being a target; I no longer feel any obligation to serve (at least not
in that type of venue). There is a difference in being a servant and being
an abused toadie.
I do not think asking people to maintain impersonality is too much to ask.
In general I believe incivility is rampant in society; and I don't think
that's a good thing.
> > Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like
LISP
> > to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how
much
> > we are willing to do.
>
> Volunteering to do Lisp work is admirable, and if you enjoy it as a hobby,
> that's fine too. But here you are obviously either burnt out on doing
either
> of these things,
I'm overworked, to be sure; it's part of the turf, but I do not mind that
part so much.
The only part I do mind is personal attacks.
I will happily march through hell for anyone that is even half way
reasonable to me; but if you wish to put your finger in my eye; that's when
we're going to have problems. I have very little patience for that; but
infinite patience otherwise (even for honest mistakes).
> and so you should progress to the next step, which is to
> actually program Lisp for _money_. That will take the tiredness right out
> of you. :-)
For writing LISP articles, sure. Writing about combinators, sure. LISP
style programming in Javascript, and DHTML absolutely.
But a LISP job using LISP itself; I just can't imagine that (though I have
done it in the past here and there). I don't want to do that again until
LISP becomes ubiquitous. My pragmatic side would never hear of it! My
philosophy of the ubiquitous would never allow it. That for me would indeed
be selling out.
LISP burned far too many people in varying degrees due to the vagaries of
the LISP market. Can't you possibly imagine why some people might be a
little gun shy of LISP?
Until LISP becomes ubiquitous I must remain on the mainstream side of the
fence and work towards the LISP side of the fence; not the reverse.
I also have little faith in the world, which I see as a house of cards. I'm
surprised it stays together as well as it does! Part of my philosophy of
the ubiquitous is to be as survivable as humanly possible.
If war and recession cause societal collapse; all that is estoeric will be
for naught. It must remain in moth balls for a better day. R&D thrives on
the fat of society!
But all that is practical will survive. That is where I want to be!
> > Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
> > desiring our time, money, and attention.
>
> And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
> serious).
If that is the case for you I am happy for you.
We need you people on the LISP side of the fence.
But we all march to a different drum; I must remain on the other side of the
fence until the two sides meet in the middle.
Please help me tear down the wall in between!
> Now, some others may respond something like "But it's hard to
> get a Lisp job!", or even, "It's _impossible_ to get a Lisp job!". To
> those who say it's hard, I say "yes, good things in life are sometimes
> hard". And to those who would dare say it's impossible, I say "OK, have
> it your way" (in other words, if as a manager I were hiring you, I would
> look for a "can do" attitude, and I simply don't see that in such a
> statement).
Actually it's not hard to find LISP jobs (I've turned down quite a few
myself); but one thing you must give up to get a LISP job is geographical
preference.
You must follow the LISP jobs to wherever they are geographically. And they
are typically not in geographical locations that I want to live in. I don't
like San Francisco nor Silicon Valley very much. Not crazy about the East
Coast. Don't care to work in academia.
I couldn't be happy doing that. I want to live wherever I want to live.
In fact, I'm much more tempted to want to work for Microsoft (perhaps on the
Javascript team!) than for a LISP vendor.
Imagine the difference a LISP programmer could make to the world at
Microsoft!!
If Microsoft were in Southern California, I might do that; but I'm not sure
how happy I'd be in Redmond! I'm in favor of blooming where one is planted.
I love the surfing here. The mountain biking. These things mean a great
deal to me. Perhaps even more than Microsoft or LISP!
In order for me to live where I want, I must be as mainstream and marketable
as humanly possible.
Your goal is LISP employment. Mine is to be able to go to any major city in
the world and be found valuable and employable by having a pratical, in
demand skill set.
And my dream is to live to see a day when that practical skill set can be
LISP.
> Give yourself a break. Come over to Lisp, and let JavaScript be just
> another piece of software that needs to be interfaced to. You'll be
> much happier.
I see that you are from Franz. I am always willing to talk! (I'm
pragmatic, remember?)
If Franz wants to work on a ubiquitous LISP, I'd be happy to talk with
Franz! (It never hurts to talk...)
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
> > What use of Lisp are you making,
>
> Using what I've learned from my experience in LISP and applying it to
> whatever I am doing in whatever kind of tools I'm being asked to used in the
> most mainstream situations I can possibly work in. That is my challenge!
[...]
> I feel that if what I learned from LISP can only be applied by using LISP
> itself; then I do not understand LISP at all! My knowledge of LISP would
> not be applied enough to make me happy.
[...]
> But a LISP job using LISP itself; I just can't imagine that (though I have
> done it in the past here and there). I don't want to do that again until
> LISP becomes ubiquitous. My pragmatic side would never hear of it! My
> philosophy of the ubiquitous would never allow it. That for me would indeed
> be selling out.
>
> LISP burned far too many people in varying degrees due to the vagaries of
> the LISP market. Can't you possibly imagine why some people might be a
> little gun shy of LISP?
>
> Until LISP becomes ubiquitous I must remain on the mainstream side of the
> fence and work towards the LISP side of the fence; not the reverse.
This whole thread, but these bits of this reply in particular, really
remind me of a part of a speech by James P. Cannon that I read
recently. He's specifically talking about revolutionists and tired
once-revolutionsts in the Socialist Workers Party in mid-century US,
but the point he makes applies to any partisan in any struggle:
The surest way to lose one's fighting faith is to succumb to one's
immediate environment; to see things only as they are and not as
they are changing and must change; to see only what is before one's
eyes and imagine that it is permanent. That is the cursed fate of
the trade unionist who separates himself from the revolutionary
party. In normal times, the trade union, by its very nature, is a
culture-broth of opportunism. No trade unionist, overwhelmed by the
petty concerns and limited aims of the day, can retain his vision of
the larger issues and the will to fight for them without the party.
The revolutionary party can make mistakes, and has made them, but it
is never wrong in the fight against grievance-mongers who try to
blame the party for their own weaknesses, for their tiredness, their
lack of vision, their impulse to quit and to capitulate. The party
is not wrong now when it calls this tendency by its right name.
People often act differently as individuals, and give different
explanations for their actions, than when they act and speak as
groups. When an individual gets tired and wants to quit, he usually
says he is tired and he quits; or he just drops out without saying
anything at all, and that's all there is to it. That has been
happening in our international movement for 100 years.
But when the same kind of people decide as a group to get out of the
line of fire by getting out of the party, they need the cover of a
faction and a "political" rationalization. Any "political"
explanation will do, and in any case it is pretty certain to be a
phony explanation. That also has been going on for about 100 years.
Naturally, it's not vital to combat the equivalent tendancy in a
programming-language community -- we're not talking about the future
of mankind here -- but I think the descriptive analysis works here as
well.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
"Thomas F. Burdick" <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
····················@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
> This whole thread, but these bits of this reply in particular, really
> remind me of a part of a speech by James P. Cannon that I read
> recently. He's specifically talking about revolutionists and tired
> once-revolutionsts in the Socialist Workers Party in mid-century US,
> but the point he makes applies to any partisan in any struggle:
>
> The surest way to lose one's fighting faith is to succumb to one's
> immediate environment;
Oh my God! That sounds like the Communist Manifesto!
Wow, you lost me with that because I detest communism, and any form
whatsoever of Socialism. I'm extremely conservative and anti-communist.
While this isn't a political arena, politics does come into play to some
extent.
I've noticed in academia and some think tanks, that they are extremely
liberal and they hate conservatives. That makes life hard for conservatives
in those arenas.
However, looking past the politics and communist sounding rhetoric; I still
feel very disturbed by what you posted because it seems too much like a
religious cult asking people to give their lives for a cause.
Looking past even that aspect of it: I don't view things as "us vs. them"
quite like you do.
And I don't feel I've tired and sold out: I anticipated such responses from
the LISP community and covered all of that in my paper at great length. I'm
too tired to repeat it all here but I gave the analogy to Ancient Israel and
how they were marginalized and subjugated by the Romans. They went through
issues of what it means to compromise vs. sell out. I.e.: Should we be
martyrs for the cause, or live to fight for a better day?
I haven't sold out. I just have a difference of approach.
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Thomas F. Burdick" <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
> ····················@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
>
> > This whole thread, but these bits of this reply in particular, really
> > remind me of a part of a speech by James P. Cannon that I read
> > recently. He's specifically talking about revolutionists and tired
> > once-revolutionsts in the Socialist Workers Party in mid-century US,
> > but the point he makes applies to any partisan in any struggle:
> >
> > The surest way to lose one's fighting faith is to succumb to one's
> > immediate environment;
>
> Oh my God! That sounds like the Communist Manifesto!
>
> Wow, you lost me with that because I detest communism, and any form
> whatsoever of Socialism. I'm extremely conservative and anti-communist.
And apparently anti-thought, too. Would you have read what I wrote,
complete with disclaimers giving context to the quote, if it had been
by a Catholic? I certainly could have dug one up, covering the same
topic -- but I kind of expected to get a thought-free response from you.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCE8145.1070605@nyc.rr.com>
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> "Thomas F. Burdick" <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
> ····················@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
>
>
>>This whole thread, but these bits of this reply in particular, really
>>remind me of a part of a speech by James P. Cannon that I read
>>recently. He's specifically talking about revolutionists and tired
>>once-revolutionsts in the Socialist Workers Party in mid-century US,
>>but the point he makes applies to any partisan in any struggle:
>>
>> The surest way to lose one's fighting faith is to succumb to one's
>> immediate environment;
>
>
> Oh my God! That sounds like the Communist Manifesto!
>
> Wow, you lost me with that because I detest communism, and any form
> whatsoever of Socialism. I'm extremely conservative and anti-communist.
is it safe to say we are past the point where you do not want this
thread to be about you? :)
Your reflex reaction to tfb's quote blinded you to its import, viz, that
you are fixated so badly on the moment that you cannot see the trend I
keep pointing out: the "herd" is voting with their hooves against the
Fortran branch of evolution and for the Lisp branch, by jumping all over
Python, Ruby, Perl, and now thx to you I will add JavaScript (well, I
don't actually know if the herd digs that, but at least its designers
seem to have discovered Lisp).
>
> I haven't sold out. I just have a difference of approach.
>
And it is a very tenable approach, viral as I said. But elsewhere
(perhaps in frustration) you said Lispers must not want to see Lisp grow
since some of us do not want to settle for getting what Lisp we can out
of JavaScript. No, we just have a different approach,
What you propose is excellent. Keep at the JS community in re becoming
Lispier and Lispier.
Others will stay behind to hold the fort. Think of Lisp as a reference
implementation of the perfect, practical language: compiled/fast,
standardized, mature, macros, interactive, GCed, GFs, special variables,
dynamic, auto-indenting, sexprs, yada yada....
Others should help Python move towards Lisp (I wager Norvig will do a
bit of that). Grahama, with Arc, draws the moths towards CL with the
light of Arc. Come to think of it, we have the herd surrounded, don't
we? Just a matter of time, because there is no turning back from good ideas.
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <87vg35nxxj.fsf@noetbook.telent.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Your reflex reaction to tfb's quote blinded you to its import, viz,
> that you are fixated so badly on the moment that you cannot see the
> trend I keep pointing out: the "herd" is voting with their hooves
> against the Fortran branch of evolution and for the Lisp branch, by
> jumping all over Python, Ruby, Perl, and now thx to you I will add
> JavaScript (well, I don't actually know if the herd digs that, but at
> least its designers seem to have discovered Lisp).
Some javascript users liken it to Lisp: witness
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/JavaScript
I havwe to admit, I was quite impressed to see that the CL community
(the free-CL-on-Unix subset of that community, even) is in such a
great state (as perceived by JavaScript users) that they want to
piggyback off our success :-)
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
·····················@nyc.rr.com...
> is it safe to say we are past the point where you do not want this
> thread to be about you? :)
Okay, I deserved that one. You got me! =:0)
> the "herd" is voting with their hooves against the
> Fortran branch of evolution and for the Lisp branch, by jumping all over
> Python, Ruby, Perl, and now thx to you I will add JavaScript (well, I
> don't actually know if the herd digs that, but at least its designers
> seem to have discovered Lisp).
I agree that consumers vote with $$ and reputations, but I think they are
voting against LISP not for it.
> And it is a very tenable approach, viral as I said. But elsewhere
> (perhaps in frustration) you said Lispers must not want to see Lisp grow
> since some of us do not want to settle for getting what Lisp we can out
> of JavaScript. No, we just have a different approach,
No, that's not quite what I said.
I feel frustrated that LISP vendors don't want to target wider audiences by
targeting platforms like Microsoft and dovetailing with them.
For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net with CL?
How about adding extensions to Scheme to make it of interest to real world
applications?
It seems LISP vendors are going after LISP programmers as a market: that's
not a big enough market.
When you see the herd is going Microsoft, target Microsoft technologies:
dovetail CL with COM!
The other approach: getting the most LISP you can out of what's out there
is a different issue. That's more a stop gap than an ultimate solution.
That's more a place to insert a virus into to get the most bang for the
buck. That's more a note of optimism that the conventional world is slowly
migrating towards LISP and could be helped along in that direction.
> What you propose is excellent. Keep at the JS community in re becoming
> Lispier and Lispier.
Thanks! You sound like you "get it"!
> Others will stay behind to hold the fort.
And I'm grateful for that too!
> Think of Lisp as a reference
> implementation of the perfect, practical language: compiled/fast,
> standardized, mature, macros, interactive, GCed, GFs, special variables,
> dynamic, auto-indenting, sexprs, yada yada....
Absolutely. It can and should be the lighthouse and the metric waiting when
the world is ready and grows weary of the conventional tools. LISP will be
waiting there ready to say: "Welcome! We were wondering when you'd join
us! It was painful watching you reinvent the same wheels we figured out
eons ago...". And I think LISP should stay LISP and not get converted into
a watered down version while waiting. (Then it wouldn't have anything to
offer anymore.)
But I still think the LISP side could do so much more with very little
effort and just a little more marketing smarts. Marketing doesn't need to
be as hard as rocket science!
> Others should help Python move towards Lisp (I wager Norvig will do a
> bit of that). Grahama, with Arc, draws the moths towards CL with the
> light of Arc. Come to think of it, we have the herd surrounded, don't
> we? Just a matter of time, because there is no turning back from good
ideas.
That's what I'm hoping; but I don't want to be presumptive and assume it
will happen without some effort!
I would especially like to see .Net targeted. Microsoft might seem like the
Roman Empire to LISP; but the good news is it is very LISP friendly (if the
LISP world only knew that!).
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <dWBz9.894$P15.92101@news.uswest.net>
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net with
> CL?
>
Not language-centric? Where's the support for multiple inheritance?
Where's the support for integers larger than 64 bits in size? How do I
access a global symbol in the .NET CLR? How do I add a new type of method
combination to my C# member function? The CLR may be *less*
language-centric than the JVM, but it still demures to the tyranny of the
(linguistically speaking) norm.
faa
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> writes:
> Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
>> For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net
>> with CL?
>>
>
> Not language-centric? Where's the support for multiple inheritance?
> Where's the support for integers larger than 64 bits in size? How
> do I access a global symbol in the .NET CLR? How do I add a new
> type of method combination to my C# member function? The CLR may be
> *less* language-centric than the JVM, but it still demures to the
> tyranny of the (linguistically speaking) norm.
This is certainly the view taken by the people working on the Perl 6
effort; CLR is fine and dandy if you're using a statically typed
language, but it's a complete screaming bastard for more dynamic
languages.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
Piers Cawley <········@bofh.org.uk> writes:
> "Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> writes:
>
> > Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> >
> >> For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net
> >> with CL?
> >>
> >
> > Not language-centric? Where's the support for multiple inheritance?
> > Where's the support for integers larger than 64 bits in size? How
> > do I access a global symbol in the .NET CLR? How do I add a new
> > type of method combination to my C# member function? The CLR may be
> > *less* language-centric than the JVM, but it still demures to the
> > tyranny of the (linguistically speaking) norm.
>
> This is certainly the view taken by the people working on the Perl 6
> effort; CLR is fine and dandy if you're using a statically typed
> language, but it's a complete screaming bastard for more dynamic
> languages.
For looking at Lisp's prospects on the .NET VM and wrt the CLR, I
think Smalltalk is a more appropriate place to look than Perl. ST is
dynamically, strongly typed like Lisp -- whereas Perl is just plain
weakly typed. There is a ST dialect, SmallScript, on .NET, which
raises the possibility that at some point it might be feasable to put
a Lisp dialect on it. I can't imagine all of CL ever being a good
idea on .NET, but possibly some subset dialect could work. The best
reason I could think of to make a .net dialect of Lisp would be to
compete with Java for the best designed-for-the-average-programmer
language, so the CLR restrictions might not be so onerous with that in
mind.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
On 12 Nov 2002, Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
[snip]
> For looking at Lisp's prospects on the .NET VM and wrt the CLR, I
> think Smalltalk is a more appropriate place to look than Perl. ST is
> dynamically, strongly typed like Lisp -- whereas Perl is just plain
> weakly typed. There is a ST dialect, SmallScript, on .NET, which
> raises the possibility that at some point it might be feasable to put
> a Lisp dialect on it.
[snip]
I'll add that SmallScript extends Smalltalk with a *lot* of straight CL
features, like multiple dispatch, multiple inheritence (of some sorts),
and a fairly sophisticated MOP (which is meant to support hosting many
object systems for diverse languages built on top of the SmallScript
engine).
David Simmons did a *lot* of work to overcome the CLR and its hostility to
dynamically typed languages, which basically meant that he added a *lot*
of parallel machinery.
Re: GC, back when they first annouced, it was said that they had 1 guy
working on it, and it was particularly bad for dynamically typed systems
but they wouldn't change it at that time because it would hold everything
up. I will also say that I've not heard of ANY .net GC papers. While I'm
not following the literature that closely anymore, I would imagine that
any significant advances would be *mentioned*.
Is the .NET gc even tunable? can you swap algorithms?
Hmm. Looks like you can GC particular sets of generations:
http://www.codeproject.com/managedcpp/garbage_collection.asp
But this seems fairly crude and low level, as:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpref/html/frlrfsystemgcmemberstopic.asp
confirms (IMHO).
I guess it's good that they have a gc at ALL, and what sounds like a
reasonable, if rather inflexible one. But "the best", by most measures and
for many apps, it doesn't seem to be.
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245943561940161@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| I agree that consumers vote with $$ and reputations, but I think they are
| voting against LISP not for it.
So much group think. Is there no word for "individual" in your language?
| For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net with CL?
.NET is too lacking.
| How about adding extensions to Scheme to make it of interest to real
| world applications?
Ask someone who cares over in comp.lang.scheme.
| When you see the herd is going Microsoft, target Microsoft technologies:
| dovetail CL with COM!
When you see the herd going in any particular direction, choose another.
| I would especially like to see .Net targeted. Microsoft might seem like
| the Roman Empire to LISP; but the good news is it is very LISP friendly
| (if the LISP world only knew that!).
It may be Scheme friendly (JVM is), but it is not Common Lisp friendly.
Please upgrade your brain with this patch: "Scheme and Common Lisp are
not interchangeable languages in /any/ respects". Thank you.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> I feel frustrated that LISP vendors don't want to target wider audiences by
> targeting platforms like Microsoft and dovetailing with them.
>
> For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net with CL?
.Net _is_ language centric - please read the CLR specs. .Net only
supports a limited object model, essentially the same as Java's object
model, with only single inheritance. This already makes it hard to
implement several languages on top of .Net. Microsoft's solution is to
change language definitions in order to make them fit. For example,
"managed C++" is not C++ anymore. The Eiffel implementation on top of
.Net comes with its own platform-dependent libraries in order to have a
full implementation (so why do they need .Net in the first place?). The
people who port Beta to both the JVM and .Net say that there's no real
difference. The language neutrality of .Net is just a marketing stunt,
born out of Microsoft's desire to beat Java.
You can get a nice overview (with both pros and cons) at
http://www.javalobby.com/clr.html
Interoperability is a good idea. Common Lisp vendors already offer many
solutions to access programs written in other languages.
BTW, you might like JScheme, http://jscheme.sourceforge.net.
Please don't misunderstand me - I think some of your ideas are good.
However, you have to remember that companies like Microsoft, Sun,
Oracle, IBM and the like can throw loads of money out of the window in
order to support and promote their favorite tool of the week. I don't
think anyone in the Lisp world can do that. (And I doubt that it would
make sense.)
Pascal
--
Given any rule, however �fundamental� or �necessary� for science, there
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in CF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey38z01qk6m.fsf_-_@cley.com>
* Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> I feel frustrated that LISP vendors don't want to target wider audiences by
> targeting platforms like Microsoft and dovetailing with them.
I'm absolutely sure that the Lisp vendors want to target the widest
audience they can. Or at least, I'm absolutely sure that the Lisp
vendors want to make lots of money, since they are capitalist
money-grabbing slime to a man[1]. What makes you think that they
don't?
> For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net
> with CL?
The problem is that it's not trivial to do this (even if .NET wasn't
language-centric, which it is). The Lisp vendors have finite money,
and they also are concerned with risk: they want to get rich - don't
we all? - but they need to be concerned with making sure the possible
downsides aren't too bad. Vendors can't simply throw resource at
something which may seem like a good idea, because they don't have
that resource to throw. They need either to sacrifice something else,
or get new resource. New resource means new people, which means
money: either they need to burn cash they have in the bank, or they
need to get funding. Well, this probably isn't a great time for
high-tech companies to go looking for funding, so let's rule out that
last one. Now look at what happens if they fail - either .NET fails,
or they don't get any sales for their .NET product, or they fail to
complete the port before the money runs out. Another dead Lisp
company.
You have to be very convinced of something before betting the
livelyhoods of yourself and many of your friends on it. I have an
idea (not a software or IT idea, but I can't tell you what it is since
I don't have the patent yet) which, if it succeeds, will likely make
me rich and (more likely) make a lot of other people rich, *and* make
the world a better place. I should just go for this right? Well, I
had this idea a couple of years ago, and I haven't done anything yet.
Why not? Well, first I have to pay for the patent (cheap enough (but
not trivial) to get, but expensive in time to write the proposal),
then I have to do a whole lot of development work to get a demo of the
thing, then I have to hawk it around companies to try and get them to
license it. Maybe 50,000 to 100,000 pounds investment. I could
mortgage my house, perhaps. But I get rich! I should just do it!
Well, *maybe* I get rich, maybe I get ripped off and have to defend
the patent against Megacorp PLC who have some really good lawyers, and
I lose my house. What would you do.
(mind you: if anyone wants to invest, you know where to contact me
(:-)).
> How about adding extensions to Scheme to make it of interest to real world
> applications?
You should ask the Scheme vendors about that.
--tim
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <1y5mlrjt.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> I feel frustrated that LISP vendors don't want to target wider audiences by
> targeting platforms like Microsoft and dovetailing with them.
>
> When you see the herd is going Microsoft, target Microsoft technologies:
> dovetail CL with COM!
Corman Common Lisp has extremely good integration with windows.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:32:10 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I feel frustrated that LISP vendors don't want to target wider audiences by
> targeting platforms like Microsoft and dovetailing with them.
You must be kidding. Are you aware that Franz, Xanalys and Corman sell
development environments for Windows?
> For instance, .Net isn't language centric; how about targeting .Net with CL?
If you check the comp.lang.lisp archive, you'll find a detailed analysys of
the technical problems of targeting .NET.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:53:41 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> bit of that). Grahama, with Arc, draws the moths towards CL with the
> light of Arc. Come to think of it, we have the herd surrounded, don't
This is definitely not your Grahama's Lisp.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Roger Corman
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3dd59ba6.797663158@nntp.sonic.net>
LOL! :-) :-)
Good one, Paolo.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:55:51 +0100, Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:53:41 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> bit of that). Grahama, with Arc, draws the moths towards CL with the
>> light of Arc. Come to think of it, we have the herd surrounded, don't
>
>This is definitely not your Grahama's Lisp.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245941603015807@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| Oh my God! That sounds like the Communist Manifesto!
|
| Wow, you lost me with that because I detest communism, and any form
| whatsoever of Socialism. I'm extremely conservative and anti-communist.
You are so /judgmental/ and not even aware of it.
Intelligent and thinking people can listen to arguments about something
they do not personally /like/ and find cause for enjoyment of the line of
reasoning even if it was used to support a argument they do not approve
of. Intelligent people think first and agree or disagree later. Stupid
people agree or disagree first and never think.
| Looking past even that aspect of it: I don't view things as "us vs. them"
| quite like you do.
You are the /worst/ "us vs. them" person I have ever seen posting here.
You also missed the point of that speech by a mile.
I have been holding out on this, but you, sir, are an idiot.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCF18D3.8080109@nyc.rr.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> I have been holding out on this, but you, sir, are an idiot.
>
Oh, Christ.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4wunmbjul.fsf@beta.franz.com>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote in message
> ··················@beta.franz.com...
> > "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > > I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause for
> > > declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
> > > encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> > > conventional languages half way.
> >
> > This is being done, without abdicating Lisp itself.
>
> As I made clear in both my paper and presentation; I don't want to see LISP
> give up its essence in the name of compromise.
As I stated at the beginning of my response, I didn't see your talk, nor
have I yet read your paper. I am responding _only_ to the responses you
have been giving in this thread, and nothing else.
> However, I don't know what you would point to as efforts on the LISP side to
> bridge the gap to the conventional world, so I can't comment further.
From this response and other responses previously, below, and in other
threads, it is obvious that you have had little contact with the Lisp
world for many years (I notice you even spell it the old way - LISP instead
of Lisp, which is no big deal, but telling).
> > Instead, we build
> > bridges between Lisp and other languages, thus making it a great
> connection
> > glue even in areas where other languages have found a niche.
>
> I'm happy to hear that, but haven't seen anything yet that I'd consider very
> ubiquitous.
You haven't been looking in the right places. A man happened upon another
man one night under a street light, and the latter was obviously looking
for something. The former asked him what he was looking for, and the latter
said "My coat. I dropped it over there" (pointing into a dark ally). The
first man was incredulous, asking "If you lost it there, then why are you
looking for it here?", to which the second man replied "It's lighter here."
> > > It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible
> rather
> > > than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
> >
> > As was pointed out by another poster, this sentence doesn't ring true, due
> > to the smashing of the optimism that you do so well in the next
> (incorrect)
> > sentence:
>
> I fail to see how those are not reconciled.
>
> Some battles have been lost. Some can still be won. I wanted to focus on
> the latter rather than the former.
You view markets as battles won or lost. You have the wrong analogy.
> > > However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> > > LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
> >
> > How does a language, which has no hardware coattails to ride behind like
> > C/C++, but which supports four or five commercial vendors and at least
> > as many free/opensource vendors, fail badly at marketing? Does it need
> > 100% of all markets to be sucessful?
>
> I found the above a bit obtuse to parse, but assuming I'm following you...
Probably the reason why it seems obtuse to you is because you've been out
of the Lisp industry for so long. You should take another look.
> LISP should not need hardware coattails. I don't get that at all. LISP
> should be able to run on stock hardware. The hardware is out there, it's
> cheap, it's plentiful, it's powerful enough. Compiler technology is awesome
> these days. What's the problem?
Lisp does run on almost all stock hardware. What's the problem?
> > > (For
> > > instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression
> based:
> > > this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope
> of
> > > an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
> >
> > Lisp is gracious to allow XML to languish in its niche, and to help it
> along
> > by providing tools for working with and generating XML.
>
> Why didn't LISP lead the way in the first place so that we never had to see
> XML? Or HTML?
This is interesting. I remember a game we used to play without really
thinking about it as kids, and my own children played it as they were
growing up. I don't think it had a name, but its essence was pure
competition - Two children would agree on a target to which to race, and
they would race. Then, the loser would get huffy, and find a target very
close to him/her, and say "ok, race you to <the new target>". Of course that
child would win that race. The game became a series of targets chosen to
guarantee success.
So of course, XML got to its target, because that's where it was headed.
> > > If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization,
> perhaps
> > > it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
> > > recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to
> learn
> > > it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot
> of
> > > users, to get those users you must be widespread.
> >
> > So what is it that you are repeating? What, for example, is JavaScript
> > learning?
>
> Usage data by users. Lots of users, using lots of machines, using lots of s
> oftware to amass huge volumes of real world experience data.
>
> The kind of data you cannot get by doing all the upfront thinking you can in
> a lab.
>
> Finding out the types of things you missed in the lab or didn't think of or
> couldn't even imagine.
>
> It's like planning a trip: at some point you must just go and learn by
> doing. There are limits to how much you can plan or even imagine about what
> you'll encounter along the way.
>
> Testers and users are wonderful. The more the merrier.
These are all fine and wonderful, and the Lisp world is doing this.
Of course, you missed much of the good stuff at the conference, since you
only stayed for one day. But I can understand that; a conference is
expensive. However, you can also see a lot of what is happening by looking
at a few websites, including ours, for free and without driving too far.
> > > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
> more
> > > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
> >
> > What R&D is it that you think is taking Lisp from its primary goal?
>
> I'm answering this for the 3rd time, so I'll be brief. I'd like to see
> applied R&D supplant more theoretical R&D until better financial stability
> is arrived at. Then, more esoteric directions are okay to pursue once
> again.
Unfortunately, you haven't answered my question once. Precisely _what_
R&D are you talking about? I want specific cases. If you have none,
then you have no point to make.
> > > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
> market
> > > than it has?
> >
> > The world is Lisp's market. My wife and I just watched our DVD of a James
> > Bond video again, and its title says it all - apparently, "The World is
> > Not Enough".
>
> ???
OK, since you didn't get it, Lisp has been all over the world of late, and
even the world is not enough; Lisp has indeed been sent into space. A better
market than "the world and beyond" one cannot find.
> > > I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics
> have
> > > been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
> > > otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if
> LISP
> > > focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby
> gathering
> > > more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting
> priorities
> > > straight!
> >
> > Whose budget are you looking at? My question above still stands, along
> with
> > another: What R&D is being squandered away by the Lisp community? And
> > whose financial health would removing such R&D thus improve?
>
> I think pondering estorery when your house is burning down is not a good
> idea.
I don't know estorery; I assume you mean esoterica. What esoterica are we
pondering? Specifically?
> I think getting your house in order should be a higher priority.
>
> > > Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse
> trap,
> > > it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to
> offer,
> > > but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
> > > accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our
> part.
> >
> > What part have you been doing?
>
> Did you attend my talk???
As I stated at the beginning of my response, I didn't see your talk. I
am responding _only_ to the responses you have been giving in this thread,
and nothing else.
> Writing, education, participation in fixing bugs and suggesting
> improvements, participating in R&D, beta testing. At some point I want to
> participate more closely with the actual standards process rather than going
> through intermediaries.
But not in the Lisp community, right? I have no problem with this, nor do
I have any problem with you making improvements to other communities in the
direction of Lisp. My only gripe is that you made statements in your post
about the Lisp community that were clearly out of sync with reality.
> Every day I program in conventional languages I'm working towards the goals
> mentioned above (which you are asking me about); as long as I do it in a
> LISP style rather than a conventional style. What good is theory if it
> isn't applied? What good is LISP if it's not part of your essence? If it's
> part of your essence, you don't have to have a LISP job. You can breathe
> LISP into the conventional world, everywhere you go, in everything you do.
> That is actually much more interesting to me than having a classical LISP
> job!
No problem here. Enjoy yourself. But don't trash the Lisp community by
making statements about it that are many years out of date.
> The world can deprive me of LISP tools; but it can never deprive me of the
> concepts I've taken from it. Hence, that is ultimate LISP job! That is the
> ultimate LISP freedom!
Agreed.
> > What use of Lisp are you making,
>
> Using what I've learned from my experience in LISP and applying it to
> whatever I am doing in whatever kind of tools I'm being asked to used in the
> most mainstream situations I can possibly work in. That is my challenge!
>
> Taking what I've learned from Lambda Calculus, combinators, theory, LISP,
> etc.; then applying that to the most mundane situations the world has to
> offer, and making a direct difference that can be immediately seen in font
> line applications that are as widely deployed in the work-a-day world as I
> can possibly get.
>
> That gives me great satisifcation from seeing even the most esoteric ideas
> applied to every day life to make life better for the greatest number of
> average people as possible. I'm very interested in the plight of the
> working stiff and the average joe on the street. If you can't make a
> difference to them, what good are your tools???
All well and good.
> I feel that if what I learned from LISP can only be applied by using LISP
> itself; then I do not understand LISP at all! My knowledge of LISP would
> not be applied enough to make me happy.
That is your choice and preference.
> I would much prefer to apply LISP by writing a LISP interpreter inside a
> conventional application than to actually use LISP from a LISP vendor. I'd
> learn a great deal more by having to implement the LISP I use rather than
> using a LISP someone else wrote.
Again, your choice. Many people do, enough so that Philip Greenspun codified
it into his "Tenth rule of programming"...
> If given a choice of M*A*S*H style real world, front line programming; or
> R&D LISP programming, I might actually prefer, and be happier, in the former
> situation; and might not be able to find a satisfying home in the later.
You have mentioned R&D many times, and have not given any examples. It's
almost as if you beleive that Lisp is an academic language only, with no
commercial inroads.
> The challenge I'm interested in is applying theory to the mundane rather
> than into R&D enclaves.
>
> > and how does
> > promulgating JavaScript count as "making Lisp acceptable"?
>
> Did you attend my talk or read my paper? It's all explained in there
> already.
As I stated at the beginning of my response, I didn't see your talk, nor
have I yet read your paper. I am responding _only_ to the responses you
have been giving in this thread, and nothing else.
What I get from your posts is that you believe that Lisp is a concept, not
a language. OK, it is a concept, and you are free and encouraged to take
the Lisp gestalt out into the rest of the language world (indeed, that is
what is happening). But Lisp is in fact a real language, used in real
applications, for real purposes. It makes a few people a lot of money,
some people enough money, and it serves as an excellent hobby for those
who are into that. Lisp is not R&D.
> My bottom line, non-negotiable starting point is that I only want to use the
> most ubiquitous tools that are available (and that is never LISP, at least
> not yet); and to be as recession proof as possible, and to be as mainstream
> as possible.
Lisp will never be as ubiquitous as you desire. You've made your position
and choice clear.
> From that starting point, I want to apply LISP techniques and concepts (if
> not LISP itself) to those situations. That is what I find interesting.
You've made that clear.
> > Well, I just saw it as a simple dig. Perhaps you are more sensitive than
> you
> > think. "Methinks thou doest protest too much" - you did make yourself
> > public by giving a talk.
>
> Giving a public talk means I want my topic to be in the limelight, not me!
> I never wanted to be the topic in a personal way. Giving a public talk
> should not avail me to pot shots and target practise. If it does; I'm not
> interested. I have no interest in a situation with that level of
> incivility. I feel we have an obligation to serve. But if being of service
> means being a target; I no longer feel any obligation to serve (at least not
> in that type of venue). There is a difference in being a servant and being
> an abused toadie.
Welcome to the real world.
> I do not think asking people to maintain impersonality is too much to ask.
No, it's never too much to ask. Whether you get what you ask for, however...
> In general I believe incivility is rampant in society; and I don't think
> that's a good thing.
Maintaining civility, especially on the internet, includes graciously
accepting a dig without taking offense. You have control over how you
respond and thus contribute to the civility of the internet society.
> > > Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like
> LISP
> > > to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how
> much
> > > we are willing to do.
> >
> > Volunteering to do Lisp work is admirable, and if you enjoy it as a hobby,
> > that's fine too. But here you are obviously either burnt out on doing
> either
> > of these things,
>
> I'm overworked, to be sure; it's part of the turf, but I do not mind that
> part so much.
>
> The only part I do mind is personal attacks.
I don't feel attacked. Do you?
> I will happily march through hell for anyone that is even half way
> reasonable to me; but if you wish to put your finger in my eye; that's when
> we're going to have problems. I have very little patience for that; but
> infinite patience otherwise (even for honest mistakes).
>
> > and so you should progress to the next step, which is to
> > actually program Lisp for _money_. That will take the tiredness right out
> > of you. :-)
>
> For writing LISP articles, sure. Writing about combinators, sure. LISP
> style programming in Javascript, and DHTML absolutely.
>
> But a LISP job using LISP itself; I just can't imagine that (though I have
> done it in the past here and there). I don't want to do that again until
> LISP becomes ubiquitous. My pragmatic side would never hear of it! My
> philosophy of the ubiquitous would never allow it. That for me would indeed
> be selling out.
You've made yourself clear.
> LISP burned far too many people in varying degrees due to the vagaries of
> the LISP market. Can't you possibly imagine why some people might be a
> little gun shy of LISP?
No, Lisp got burned by the AI collapse. People are gun-shy, and even
aggressively antagonistic, because the AI hype of the 80s caused many
managers to sink billions of dollars into the AI industry, which ended up
not delivering all that it had promised in the timeframe it had promised it.
Because Lisp was so closely tied to AI, it was dragged down with AI when the
AI Winter occurred in the 90s. Lisp is just now on its way back out of that
winter.
> Until LISP becomes ubiquitous I must remain on the mainstream side of the
> fence and work towards the LISP side of the fence; not the reverse.
Your choice.
> I also have little faith in the world, which I see as a house of cards. I'm
> surprised it stays together as well as it does! Part of my philosophy of
> the ubiquitous is to be as survivable as humanly possible.
Interesting philosophy. I'm glad I don't adhere to it.
> If war and recession cause societal collapse; all that is estoeric will be
> for naught. It must remain in moth balls for a better day. R&D thrives on
> the fat of society!
>
> But all that is practical will survive. That is where I want to be!
This is too funny. Where will JavaScript be if society collapses?
> > > Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
> > > desiring our time, money, and attention.
> >
> > And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
> > serious).
>
> If that is the case for you I am happy for you.
>
> We need you people on the LISP side of the fence.
>
> But we all march to a different drum; I must remain on the other side of the
> fence until the two sides meet in the middle.
>
> Please help me tear down the wall in between!
It is really a half-silvered morror. You only see the wall from your side.
From the lisp side, there are connections to many other languages.
> > Now, some others may respond something like "But it's hard to
> > get a Lisp job!", or even, "It's _impossible_ to get a Lisp job!". To
> > those who say it's hard, I say "yes, good things in life are sometimes
> > hard". And to those who would dare say it's impossible, I say "OK, have
> > it your way" (in other words, if as a manager I were hiring you, I would
> > look for a "can do" attitude, and I simply don't see that in such a
> > statement).
>
> Actually it's not hard to find LISP jobs (I've turned down quite a few
> myself); but one thing you must give up to get a LISP job is geographical
> preference.
>
> You must follow the LISP jobs to wherever they are geographically. And they
> are typically not in geographical locations that I want to live in. I don't
> like San Francisco nor Silicon Valley very much. Not crazy about the East
> Coast. Don't care to work in academia.
>
> I couldn't be happy doing that. I want to live wherever I want to live.
>
> In fact, I'm much more tempted to want to work for Microsoft (perhaps on the
> Javascript team!) than for a LISP vendor.
>
> Imagine the difference a LISP programmer could make to the world at
> Microsoft!!
>
> If Microsoft were in Southern California, I might do that; but I'm not sure
> how happy I'd be in Redmond! I'm in favor of blooming where one is planted.
> I love the surfing here. The mountain biking. These things mean a great
> deal to me. Perhaps even more than Microsoft or LISP!
Telecommuting is a possibility nowadays. But in order to tellecommute in
a Lisp job, you must be up-to-date on Lisp technology. You won't get that
by programming Javascript.
> In order for me to live where I want, I must be as mainstream and marketable
> as humanly possible.
>
> Your goal is LISP employment. Mine is to be able to go to any major city in
> the world and be found valuable and employable by having a pratical, in
> demand skill set.
> And my dream is to live to see a day when that practical skill set can be
> LISP.
>
> > Give yourself a break. Come over to Lisp, and let JavaScript be just
> > another piece of software that needs to be interfaced to. You'll be
> > much happier.
>
> I see that you are from Franz. I am always willing to talk! (I'm
> pragmatic, remember?)
>
> If Franz wants to work on a ubiquitous LISP, I'd be happy to talk with
> Franz! (It never hurts to talk...)
Sure. We'd gladly sell you our ubiquitous Lisp. Check out our website,
and download a trial version.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-0911021225010001@192.168.1.51>
In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> Lisp has indeed been sent into space.
I don't really want to take sides because I have very mixed feelings about
the issue, but for the sake of informing the debate I would like to point
out that the net result of Lisp's being sent into space was not altogether
positive. See http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html for the gory
details.
E.
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4smyabcft.fsf@beta.franz.com>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
> > Lisp has indeed been sent into space.
>
> I don't really want to take sides because I have very mixed feelings about
> the issue, but for the sake of informing the debate I would like to point
> out that the net result of Lisp's being sent into space was not altogether
> positive. See http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html for the gory
> details.
Search for the rest of your life for the altogether positive result; you
won't find it. You can find a cloud in any silver lining if you search
hard enough.
But the positive vs negative aspect of Lisp in space has little to do
with the aspects of this debate, as Mr. van Meulebrouc has defined it
in this thread. For this thread (and, I gather from other discussions,
from his talk) ubiquity is king, and so all that is necessary is to
show ubiquity. So shown.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-0911021659420001@192.168.1.51>
In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig
<·····@franz.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Lisp has indeed been sent into space.
> >
> > I don't really want to take sides because I have very mixed feelings about
> > the issue, but for the sake of informing the debate I would like to point
> > out that the net result of Lisp's being sent into space was not altogether
> > positive. See http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html for the gory
> > details.
>
> Search for the rest of your life for the altogether positive result; you
> won't find it. You can find a cloud in any silver lining if you search
> hard enough.
>
> But the positive vs negative aspect of Lisp in space has little to do
> with the aspects of this debate, as Mr. van Meulebrouc has defined it
> in this thread. For this thread (and, I gather from other discussions,
> from his talk) ubiquity is king, and so all that is necessary is to
> show ubiquity. So shown.
No, I don't think so. The whole point of the reference (did you read it?)
is that the net result of Lisp's flying in space is that Lisp is now much
less ubiquitous than it ever was, at least at JPL.
And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that it's
been a fucking disaster.
E.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245884442768873@naggum.no>
* Erann Gat
| And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that
| it's been a fucking disaster.
What remains to be explained, however, is why "Lisp" gets blamed.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-0911022311360001@192.168.1.51>
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * Erann Gat
> | And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that
> | it's been a fucking disaster.
>
> What remains to be explained, however, is why "Lisp" gets blamed.
Blamed for what (and by whom)? In the case of RA it was just a convenient
scapegoat for the general problems the project was having.
E.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <u65v5gbgf.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 10 Nov 2002 02:34:02 +0000, Erik Naggum ("Erik") writes:
Erik> * Erann Gat
Erik> | And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that
Erik> | it's been a fucking disaster.
Erik> What remains to be explained, however, is why "Lisp" gets blamed.
Presumably because it's an easy target, because it is not the standard
solution that everybody understands. From a manager's standpoint, it's
much safer than blaming the failure of a project on poor management!
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * Erann Gat
> | And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that
> | it's been a fucking disaster.
> What remains to be explained, however, is why "Lisp" gets blamed.
Yes. It's certainly not clear from your (Erann's) summary that there
was *any* problem caused by Lisp or the use of Lisp, or that "sending it
into space" had much to do with the JPL brass opinion of the language.
If there's not some other side that we're missing here, it would seem
that the decision not to use Lisp at JPL, was not the result of sending
Lisp into space, or anything whatsoever to do with Lisp, the programers
using it there, or the software they produced with it, but plain and
simple ignorance and FUD.
Michael
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-1011021844210001@192.168.1.51>
In article <···························@panix.com>, ···@panix.com (Michael
Sullivan) wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>
> > * Erann Gat
> > | And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that
> > | it's been a fucking disaster.
>
> > What remains to be explained, however, is why "Lisp" gets blamed.
>
> Yes. It's certainly not clear from your (Erann's) summary that there
> was *any* problem caused by Lisp or the use of Lisp, or that "sending it
> into space" had much to do with the JPL brass opinion of the language.
>
> If there's not some other side that we're missing here, it would seem
> that the decision not to use Lisp at JPL, was not the result of sending
> Lisp into space, or anything whatsoever to do with Lisp, the programers
> using it there, or the software they produced with it, but plain and
> simple ignorance and FUD.
Ah, I see.
The truth is that I don't really know why Lisp gets blamed. I have my
theories, but these are nothing more than speculation on my part.
(Informed speculation perhaps, but speculation nonetheless.)
"Why Lisp gets blamed" depends a lot on who is doing the blaming. I think
that the overwhelming factor for most managers at JPL is that Lisp is
simply not on their radar screen at all. Read current IT periodicals,
look at IT conferences, Lisp just isn't there. It's all C++, Java, Perl,
TCL, XML... So most managers react to Lisp not with FUD but with "what?"
(Then when they get past the "what" they go on to, "Who uses it?"
Sometimes my answer is "We do" but that doesn't seem to cut much mustard.
The sad fact of the matter is that very few people use Lisp.)
In the specific case of the Remote Agent we had a lot of problems, some of
which could reasonably be attributed to the use of Lisp. Most notably, we
had the problem of how to get Lisp to talk to C in a multi-platform
multi-operating-system environment. This was B.C.: Before CORBA. We
adopted an interprocess communication (IPC) system that was developed by
Reid Simmons at CMU as part of his TCA robot control architecture. We had
no end of problems with the IPC system. It was never really designed to
be an IPC, it was designed to be a robot control architecture. And it
used a central server (written in C) that kept crashing. Every time it
crashed development came to a screeching halt. This was the most visible
problem, and it was constantly in everyone's face. So while we did not
have very many technical problems with Lisp itself, it was clear that the
only reason we had IPC is because we had Lisp. No Lisp, no IPC. No IPC,
no central server crashes to deal with. So Lisp got blamed - somewhat
justifiably - because of the unreliability of a piece of software written
in C. Ironic, isn't it?
(Why didn't we ditch the IPC and replace it with something more reliable?
Politics. We were required to have university involvement in the project,
and the IPC was the only subsystem that was being contributed by a
university. Ironically, even Reid Simmons didn't really want to do the
IPC because what he was interested in was autonomy, and all his autonomy
stuff got tossed out. He was probably even more frustrated than I was.
From his point of view we threw out his baby and kept the bathwater.
N.B.: Remote Agent flew with Reid's IPC, so he did eventually get all the
bugs worked out. But, alas, not quite soon enough.)
E.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCF2A94.6050003@nyc.rr.com>
Erann Gat wrote:
>
> (Why didn't we ditch the IPC and replace it with something more reliable?
> Politics. We were required to have university involvement in the project,
> and the IPC was the only subsystem that was being contributed by a
> university.
Wow.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4fzuaasud.fsf@beta.franz.com>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>
> > ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> >
> > > In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig
> <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lisp has indeed been sent into space.
> > >
> > > I don't really want to take sides because I have very mixed feelings about
> > > the issue, but for the sake of informing the debate I would like to point
> > > out that the net result of Lisp's being sent into space was not altogether
> > > positive. See http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html for the gory
> > > details.
> >
> > Search for the rest of your life for the altogether positive result; you
> > won't find it. You can find a cloud in any silver lining if you search
> > hard enough.
> >
> > But the positive vs negative aspect of Lisp in space has little to do
> > with the aspects of this debate, as Mr. van Meulebrouc has defined it
> > in this thread. For this thread (and, I gather from other discussions,
> > from his talk) ubiquity is king, and so all that is necessary is to
> > show ubiquity. So shown.
>
> No, I don't think so. The whole point of the reference (did you read it?)
Yes, it was mostly the same stories you've told or referenced several times
before on this newsgroup. The saddest sad situation, though, is that you
would wish the same fate on Java (due to the dotcom bust) that happened to
Lisp (due to the AI bust). Why would you hope for that?
> is that the net result of Lisp's flying in space is that Lisp is now much
> less ubiquitous than it ever was, at least at JPL.
No matter how much you try to negate the accomplishment that earned your
project an award, you can't erase the fact that Lisp has been in space.
If, for political reasons, it will never go up again (via JPL), why would
that signal to you that Lisp cannot lay claim to having been in space?
> And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that it's
> been a fucking disaster.
Why not say how you _really_ feel? :-)
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-0911022335300001@192.168.1.51>
In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> Yes, it was mostly the same stories you've told or referenced several times
> before on this newsgroup. The saddest sad situation, though, is that you
> would wish the same fate on Java (due to the dotcom bust) that happened to
> Lisp (due to the AI bust). Why would you hope for that?
I don't understand how you can read my article and still ask this
question. The entire article is the answer. Maybe you should read it
again.
> > is that the net result of Lisp's flying in space is that Lisp is now much
> > less ubiquitous than it ever was, at least at JPL.
>
> No matter how much you try to negate the accomplishment that earned your
> project an award, you can't erase the fact that Lisp has been in space.
> If, for political reasons, it will never go up again (via JPL), why would
> that signal to you that Lisp cannot lay claim to having been in space?
It wouldn't, of course, but I thought what was relevant to the discussion
was not how ubiquitous Lisp may once have been, but how ubiquitous it is
now. COBOL was once ubiquitous, but if I were a COBOL fan I wouldn't take
much comfort from that today.
> > And "not altogether positive" is just a diplomatic way of saying that it's
> > been a fucking disaster.
>
> Why not say how you _really_ feel? :-)
Because every time I do I get into trouble. :-(
E.
"Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message ·························@192.168.1.51...
> >
> > Why not say how you _really_ feel? :-)
>
> Because every time I do I get into trouble. :-(
Reading your article I am struck on how you stay away from
personal critisism of your fellow workers and managers at JPL.
You seem to blame it on the nebulous "political" problems, ideas
or the pressures of failing projects and tight timelines. But
from reading it it seems quite obvious that the problems are
from personal failings of the development groups at JPL. Their
budgets may have been tightened because they are viewed
as being incompetent and failures by the powers that be. With the
inability of the "Top" managers to perform and without having
reasonable explanations as to why, the people in control of the
money have resorted to just financially squeezing them until
they either find a way (and smarten up) or fail miserably.
Wade
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-1011020951080001@192.168.1.51>
In article <·······················@news2.telusplanet.net>, "Wade
Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> "Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
·························@192.168.1.51...
> > >
> > > Why not say how you _really_ feel? :-)
> >
> > Because every time I do I get into trouble. :-(
>
> Reading your article I am struck on how you stay away from
> personal critisism of your fellow workers and managers at JPL.
With one exception. See footnote 3.
> You seem to blame it on the nebulous "political" problems, ideas
> or the pressures of failing projects and tight timelines. But
> from reading it it seems quite obvious that the problems are
> from personal failings of the development groups at JPL.
Oh dear, I hope it's not obvious because that's definintely not true. JPL
is full of very smart, very good, very busy people. But many of them are
not computer scientists, they are *real* scientists -- the kind who do
science. Or they are "rocket scientists", which is to say, spacecraft
engineers. Many of them know just enough about programming to be
dangerous (much like I know just enough about spacecraft to be dangerous)
:-) The situation is a microcosm of the world at large. The problems
really are political, which is to say, they arise from the complex
dynamics of many people working together to try to get something very hard
done. There is almost nothing going on that I would attribute to anyone's
"personal failings." Or perhaps a better way to say that would be that
everyone has personal failings, including myself, and they all contribute
more or less equally to the situation.
> Their budgets may have been tightened because they are viewed
> as being incompetent and failures by the powers that be.
No, quite the opposite happened on DS1 actually. The budget was tightened
because management believed we could get the job done with fewer resources
(they were wrong, but that's another story).
> With the
> inability of the "Top" managers to perform and without having
> reasonable explanations as to why, the people in control of the
> money have resorted to just financially squeezing them until
> they either find a way (and smarten up) or fail miserably.
Well, the "top managers" *are* the people in control of the money, so that
doesn't really make any sense. What would you expect them to do
differently?
E.
"Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message ·························@192.168.1.51...
> > You seem to blame it on the nebulous "political" problems, ideas
> > or the pressures of failing projects and tight timelines. But
> > from reading it it seems quite obvious that the problems are
> > from personal failings of the development groups at JPL.
>
> Oh dear, I hope it's not obvious because that's definintely not true. JPL
> is full of very smart, very good, very busy people. But many of them are
> not computer scientists, they are *real* scientists -- the kind who do
> science. Or they are "rocket scientists", which is to say, spacecraft
> engineers. Many of them know just enough about programming to be
> dangerous (much like I know just enough about spacecraft to be dangerous)
> :-) The situation is a microcosm of the world at large. The problems
> really are political, which is to say, they arise from the complex
> dynamics of many people working together to try to get something very hard
> done. There is almost nothing going on that I would attribute to anyone's
> "personal failings." Or perhaps a better way to say that would be that
> everyone has personal failings, including myself, and they all contribute
> more or less equally to the situation.
But the top manager getting up and esposuing that getting rid of
Lisp is the one thing that he would like to improve things shows a
lack of introspection and thoughfulness. Why would ANY manager
say that at any time in a public forum (it's akin to flogging). The
only thing I can think of is a personal failing, a failing to get
his mouth under control and his brain in gear. Perhaps you can
come up with some excuse?? From your writing you are harder
on yourself than other people and it seems that you do want to
use the words that accurately describe poor human behaviour. You are
a target because of that those very behaviours, they are using it
against you. Quit giving them excuses and a way out that justifies their
stupid behaviour in the face of difficulties. Its in the difficult situations
that a person's real character comes out. What is theirs?
(Sounds like they eat their young).
Don't take that crap from anyone, even real scientists.
It is also not true that everyone more or less contributes equally. Do
your personal failings make the politics worse? It sounds like you
try to learn from them, as opposed to your co-workers. Ignorance is
no excuse.
>
> > Their budgets may have been tightened because they are viewed
> > as being incompetent and failures by the powers that be.
>
> No, quite the opposite happened on DS1 actually. The budget was tightened
> because management believed we could get the job done with fewer resources
> (they were wrong, but that's another story).
>
> > With the
> > inability of the "Top" managers to perform and without having
> > reasonable explanations as to why, the people in control of the
> > money have resorted to just financially squeezing them until
> > they either find a way (and smarten up) or fail miserably.
>
> Well, the "top managers" *are* the people in control of the money, so that
> doesn't really make any sense. What would you expect them to do
> differently?
I thought the people in control was the Congress (or whatever other branch of
government). Don't the managers just budget and plead their case before some
committee? In light of the recent failures (spacecraft missing their orbits,
or crashing into their destination, or the boondoggle with the space station)
this would certainly give me pause.
Wade
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-1011021801450001@192.168.1.51>
In article <·······················@news1.telusplanet.net>, "Wade
Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> "Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
·························@192.168.1.51...
> > > You seem to blame it on the nebulous "political" problems, ideas
> > > or the pressures of failing projects and tight timelines. But
> > > from reading it it seems quite obvious that the problems are
> > > from personal failings of the development groups at JPL.
> >
> > Oh dear, I hope it's not obvious because that's definintely not true. JPL
> > is full of very smart, very good, very busy people. But many of them are
> > not computer scientists, they are *real* scientists -- the kind who do
> > science. Or they are "rocket scientists", which is to say, spacecraft
> > engineers. Many of them know just enough about programming to be
> > dangerous (much like I know just enough about spacecraft to be dangerous)
> > :-) The situation is a microcosm of the world at large. The problems
> > really are political, which is to say, they arise from the complex
> > dynamics of many people working together to try to get something very hard
> > done. There is almost nothing going on that I would attribute to anyone's
> > "personal failings." Or perhaps a better way to say that would be that
> > everyone has personal failings, including myself, and they all contribute
> > more or less equally to the situation.
>
> But the top manager getting up and esposuing that getting rid of
> Lisp is the one thing that he would like to improve things shows a
> lack of introspection and thoughfulness.
That wasn't a top manager, that was an engineer. (You need to go back and
read what I wrote again more carefully.) The managers listened to this
engineer, which most of the time is exactly what we engineers want our
managers to do.
One of the most frustrating things about what is going on is that a lot of
resources are being wasted, but there isn't really a villain. There is no
one doing anything malicious, or even untenable based on what they know.
There are no PHBs. (Well, actually there are some, but the system is
surprisingly effective at shunting them into deputy positions where they
can't really do very much harm. Which is not to say that all the deputies
are PHBs either.)
The real problem is that the spacecraft people don't trust the software
people, and so we get spacecraft people trying to do software themselves,
which makes the software get done badly. But frankly the spacecraft
people's mistrust is not entirely without foundation.
> > Well, the "top managers" *are* the people in control of the money, so that
> > doesn't really make any sense. What would you expect them to do
> > differently?
>
> I thought the people in control was the Congress (or whatever other branch of
> government).
Congress has control over our budget at a very coarse level of
granularity. They can turn the spigot on and off, but they can't
excercise very much direct control over what we do with the money. (They
excercise indirect control by threatening to turn the spigot off if
certain things don't happen their way, but their level of interest usually
stops at the borders of their Congressional districts.)
Even top management doesn't really have much direct control over how
things are done technically. What they do have control over is who gets
appointed to the project management positions. Project managers in turn
have control over who gets appointed to the system engineering positions.
The system engineers have the most direct control over technical
decisions.
E.
"Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message ·························@192.168.1.51...
>
> One of the most frustrating things about what is going on is that a lot of
> resources are being wasted, but there isn't really a villain. There is no
> one doing anything malicious, or even untenable based on what they know.
> There are no PHBs. (Well, actually there are some, but the system is
> surprisingly effective at shunting them into deputy positions where they
> can't really do very much harm. Which is not to say that all the deputies
> are PHBs either.)
>
Then why are you promoting Lisp use at JPL then, and, having so much
of a problem with it? There seems to be no benevolent forces either.
Malevolent forces also include doing nothing and expending no energy
to get past the obstacles. (I am just following orders! I am just doing
what everyone else was doing! or in the case of political disputes,
killing your opposition (it takes very little effort))
Benevolence takes great energy to actually make life better.
Your explanation of the IPC problem and it being written C. Did anyone
blame it on C and say, "let's get rid of C"? Probably not, they probably
blamed it on the developers and their circumstances (in this case needing
an IPC to Lisp). They blamed the outside circumstances for their foul-ups.
Its everyone else's fault.
Were you at the meeting when the engineer said to get rid of Lisp? Did
anyone stand up in rebuttal?
> The real problem is that the spacecraft people don't trust the software
> people, and so we get spacecraft people trying to do software themselves,
> which makes the software get done badly. But frankly the spacecraft
> people's mistrust is not entirely without foundation.
>
If software development is so un-professional at JPL,
of course they do not trust the software people. Trust is earned.
Get some new software people. Right now they seem to be
in a fantasy world that they are doing a good job (time to put in some
metrics to measure what is actually going on).
The only concrete suggestion I have for changing things is that projects
have two or more competing streams of development. One in C (or whatever),
one in Lisp and any others you might want. Also have a testing group which
is independent of the development. See who produces a compliant
running system first, use that system in the final product. It might cost more
at the beginning, but as time goes by.....
Wade
In article <·······················@news1.telusplanet.net>, "Wade
Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> "Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
·························@192.168.1.51...
> >
> > One of the most frustrating things about what is going on is that a lot of
> > resources are being wasted, but there isn't really a villain. There is no
> > one doing anything malicious, or even untenable based on what they know.
> > There are no PHBs. (Well, actually there are some, but the system is
> > surprisingly effective at shunting them into deputy positions where they
> > can't really do very much harm. Which is not to say that all the deputies
> > are PHBs either.)
> >
>
> Then why are you promoting Lisp use at JPL then, and, having so much
> of a problem with it?
What makes you think I'm still promoting Lisp at JPL?
> There seems to be no benevolent forces either.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. There are
benevolent forces, of course. JPL has 6,000 people working here. The
only sweeping generalization you can make about a place this big is that
you can't make any sweeping generalizations about it.
> Your explanation of the IPC problem and it being written C. Did anyone
> blame it on C and say, "let's get rid of C"?
No, of course not. If we'd gotten rid of C the mission would almost
certainly have failed outright.
> Were you at the meeting when the engineer said to get rid of Lisp? Did
> anyone stand up in rebuttal?
Yes I was, and no I didn't (and neither did anyone else). It would have
been the wrong thing to do, not to mention a career-killing move. There
were over 100 people at this meeting. It was not the time to start an
impromptu debate.
> (time to put in some
> metrics to measure what is actually going on).
Been there. Done that. http://www.flownet.com/gat/papers/lisp-java.pdf
> The only concrete suggestion I have for changing things is that projects
> have two or more competing streams of development. One in C (or whatever),
> one in Lisp and any others you might want.
Two problems with that idea. First, it costs too much. Missions are
already running on shoestrings. They can't afford parallel developments.
Second, the results from one trial won't really tell you anything. If
team A gets a system working faster than team B, is that because the tools
that team A used were better, or because the people on team A were
better? To get unambiguous causality results you have to repeat the
experiment multiple times. We can't afford even to do it once.
It's not such a simple problem.
E.
From: Donald Fisk
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DD08553.CC3B055A@enterprise.net>
Erann Gat wrote:
> Two problems with that idea. First, it costs too much. Missions are
> already running on shoestrings. They can't afford parallel developments.
> Second, the results from one trial won't really tell you anything. If
> team A gets a system working faster than team B, is that because the tools
> that team A used were better, or because the people on team A were
> better?
It's difficult to separate craftsmen from their tools. Good
craftsmen will use good tools. Not so good craftsmen won't
magically become good craftsmen just by changing their tools --
quite the opposite, because they won't be used to them. However,
good craftsmen won't do as well if they are given poor tools.
So if team A wins and it uses Lisp, the job gets done in Lisp.
This could be because the programmers are better, because the
language is better, or because good programmers gravitate towards
better languages such as Lisp.
> It's not such a simple problem.
It's perhaps clearer to see if you take an experienced Emacs
user who doesn't know vi, and an experienced vi user who doesn't
know Emacs and get them to do a typing task, then swap editors.
Both will suffer when they swap.
> E.
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DD09149.2050203@nyc.rr.com>
Donald Fisk wrote:
> Erann Gat wrote:
>
>
>>Two problems with that idea. First, it costs too much. Missions are
>>already running on shoestrings. They can't afford parallel developments.
>>Second, the results from one trial won't really tell you anything. If
>>team A gets a system working faster than team B, is that because the tools
>>that team A used were better, or because the people on team A were
>>better?
>
>
> It's difficult to separate craftsmen from their tools. Good
> craftsmen will use good tools.
True, but good craftsmen will also solve not just the problem at hand,
rather they will develop an infrastructure (probably in the form of an
embedded language) suitable for any mission. They will finish a distant
second on the first mission but be ready to toss off in short order
mission after ensuing mission. Except there won't be any, because
management will go with the "winner" of the competition.
I have been meaning to ask here if anyone knows of a good book which
might be titled "Software Management for the Non-technical Exceutive",
but I am afraid everyone will say "Dilbert" (and they won't be joking).
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
From: Bob Bane
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DD12E8E.2050400@removeme.gst.com>
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
> I have been meaning to ask here if anyone knows of a good book which
> might be titled "Software Management for the Non-technical Exceutive",
> but I am afraid everyone will say "Dilbert" (and they won't be joking).
>
"Peopleware" by Lister and deMarco. The tenth anniversary second
edition came out recently. I make sure anyone who manages me is at
least aware of it, and their reaction to it is an excellent PHB filter.
From: Donald Fisk
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DD17610.B4722459@enterprise.net>
Bob Bane wrote:
>
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
> >
> > I have been meaning to ask here if anyone knows of a good book which
> > might be titled "Software Management for the Non-technical Exceutive",
> > but I am afraid everyone will say "Dilbert" (and they won't be joking).
One way I've found of telling whether a company is a good place
to work is to compare the number of Dilbert cartoons on office
walls to the numbers of other cartoons. The more Dilbert, the
worse the place. This is in no way a criticism of the Dilbert
cartoon strip, which does an excellent job of highlighting bad
management practices.
> "Peopleware" by Lister and deMarco. The tenth anniversary second
> edition came out recently. I make sure anyone who manages me is at
> least aware of it, and their reaction to it is an excellent PHB filter.
I'd recommend Peopleware too. By an odd coincidence, I read
it a few months after reading Christopher Alexander's books,
which were recommended in Patterns of Software by RPG. Lister
and DeMarco also refer heavily to Alexander.
There are a few other management books I would recommend, none
used by PHBs: the Mythical Man Month by Brooks, The Organization
Man by Whyte and Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail by
Belbin.
PHBs seem to read the latest trendy stuff, as well as Tom
Peters books. That's why they pass from one fad to another.
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
"Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
·························@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov...
> > The only concrete suggestion I have for changing things is that projects
> > have two or more competing streams of development. One in C (or whatever),
> > one in Lisp and any others you might want.
>
> Two problems with that idea. First, it costs too much. Missions are
> already running on shoestrings. They can't afford parallel developments.
> Second, the results from one trial won't really tell you anything. If
> team A gets a system working faster than team B, is that because the tools
> that team A used were better, or because the people on team A were
> better? To get unambiguous causality results you have to repeat the
> experiment multiple times. We can't afford even to do it once.
>
> It's not such a simple problem.
Cannot say anything about costs, just that it can save money in the
long run. Shock! I have to worry about the future too!
The experiment can tell you a lot as the subjects can give feedback,
unlike a chemical in a beaker.
Hypothetical situation.
Team A using Combination of Lisp and C (for OS and Device Drivers).
Team B using C for it all.
All team members fervently believe in their approach. No room for
unbelievers please.
Team A finishes integration and simulation testing to the satisfaction
of the testing group. B has not finished coding. Let B
finish. Keep track of the bug fixes after that.
Skip to the de-briefing:
Possible answers as to why A won.
1) Lisp is a better language. Team B does not admit that Lisp is
a better language, thus A has better programmers. Result? Get
rid of Team B, thus B would never admit that. Team B
admits Lisp is a better language. Result? Lisp is used.
2) Programmers are better on team A. Team B says no
and thus Lisp is a better language. Result?
Do development in Lisp. Team B says yes. Result? Team A
has more influence since they are viewed as better and more
trust-worthy. Team A says use Lisp.
3) Lisp is a better language and the Programmers are better on
Team A. Psychological melt-down.
4) Undisclosed, undiscoverable reason (I dunno). Fact: Team A beat Team B,
because of Alan Turing's Invisible Hand, thus use Team A.
Trust Team A more than Team B. Result. Let Team A
have more say. Team A says use Lisp.
5) Wasn't fair! Best 2 out of 3. Go back to start.
The question is, do you think a Lisp group could effectively finish in
1/2, 1/4, or heaven forbid, 1/10 of the time?
What is the psychological impact of that happening? Can it be
ignored if it is a public competition? Would anybody care at JPL?
Of course the result of this could be irrational and have them conclude
that Team A has better programmers, get rid of team B, but have A
program next in C, over the protests of Team A. This can be overcome by
propaganda during the competition that inflates Team B's abilities and
promotes them as the best of the best. (make Team A the underdog)
The probable pre-result is that Team B would be quaking in their boots
and would do everything in their power to prevent the competition. Thus
it would never get off the ground. Need strong support from top-level
management to make it fly. Makes me think that shoestring budgets
entrench current practice and are disincentive to change.
Wade
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3246026562380494@naggum.no>
* Wade Humeniuk
| The only concrete suggestion I have for changing things is that projects
| have two or more competing streams of development.
Expensive as this may sound, it is probably the /only/ way to reduce the
cost of software development and actually acquire the experience we lack
on which software development methodology works better than others.
I am in general no fan of competition (I think it makes people optimize
for superficial qualities), but if the cost of failure is limited, at the
very least people will not run around like headless chicken because they
fear for their jobs, which is frequently the consequence of competition.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote in message
··················@beta.franz.com...
> Search for the rest of your life for the altogether positive result; you
> won't find it. You can find a cloud in any silver lining if you search
> hard enough.
>
> But the positive vs negative aspect of Lisp in space has little to do
> with the aspects of this debate, as Mr. van Meulebrouc has defined it
> in this thread. For this thread (and, I gather from other discussions,
> from his talk) ubiquity is king, and so all that is necessary is to
> show ubiquity. So shown.
Well, that's not *my* definition of ubiquity; rather that is just one more
niche, albeit an interesting one.
(BTW, there's a "k" at the end of my name.)
I wish you had attended my talk because I covered a lot of stuff.
Many on this list are reacting to me as if I'm a traitor to LISP!
If they had only heard my talk! I am even more optimistic about LISP than
you are!
I think Microsoft has the coattails to make LISP win and win big; and so I'm
optimistic that Microsoft is LISP's greatest hope of becoming widespread.
The market could change; but as things sit now and into the foreseeable
future that's what it looks like to me.
On the client side Javascript on Internet Explorer gives companies
everything they need to write very nice GUI applications on corporate
intranets (where security isn't as big an issue because you're sitting
behind a *huge* firewall). Internet Explorer even has a nice debugger for
Javascript.
Javascript is so close to LISP it's more than enough to make me a very happy
camper.
On the server side, the situation is even rosier for LISP via Microsoft.
(On a server, you can do anything you want!)
.Net is not language centric: everything compiles to CLR and there is a
common type system. The common type system means you can catch exceptions
from a module written in a diffent language, and you can extend it (etc.).
In .Net, you can use Scheme (it has a CLR compiler, created by Northwestern
University). And ML, Haskell, and a lot of other languages are supported
(by 3rd party vendors).
.Net also features the best garbage collector ever created (according to the
person in charge of that department at Microsoft and I have no reason to
doubt him). LISP gurus were called in to help craft it (sorry, but I won't
dare drop any names here as I don't think it would be a good idea to do so!)
So, it would appear that everything is in place for LISP to be very healthy
because of Microsoft.
I've been condescended to pretty intensely on this list as if I'm not
current on LISP.
That's not entirely the case: I'm just current on different things. I'm
not as interested in what LISP vendors are up to (I do keep tabs on them
however!) because I don't think that's ultimately going to be the hope of
LISP.
I am pretty current on what's going on at Microsoft however; because that's
where I think the big break for LISP is most likely to happen. And on that
count, I'm very optimistic!
From: Frank A. Adrian
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <RMBz9.887$P15.91253@news.uswest.net>
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> On the server side, the situation is even rosier for LISP via Microsoft.
> (On a server, you can do anything you want!)
>
> .Net is not language centric: everything compiles to CLR and there is a
> common type system. The common type system means you can catch exceptions
> from a module written in a diffent language, and you can extend it (etc.).
>
> In .Net, you can use Scheme (it has a CLR compiler, created by
> Northwestern
> University). And ML, Haskell, and a lot of other languages are supported
> (by 3rd party vendors).
>
So why don't you just go ahead and use and promote it? You seem to think
that Lisp & Scheme are interchangeable.
Listen -- I've looked into compiling Common Lisp into the CLR. In the final
analysis, the impedence mismatch is just too great (less than into the JVM,
but still too great). The Lisp that you get out of it is so mutated that
it doesn't look much like Common Lisp. How do you do keyword arguments?
How do you deal with mapping betwwen CLR types like Integer32 and CL
fixnums? How do you pass items to and from the Lisp world without making
either the code in the non-Lisp world do tons of conversion or adding tons
of type information to the Lisp world? It just doesn't work out. You'd be
better off taking an approach like Corman Lisp does, exposing the Lisp
environment as a large COM object and passing string objects back and forth
(or talking over streams).
I guess that my biggest gripe about your approach is that a lot of folks
like you with no real skin in the Lisp game keep coming around telling
people who do what to do to make their life better. All of them "love Lisp
and want to make it succeed", too. I know. I've been there. It's a stage
that many of us go through. Luckily, for most of us, it passes.
If you want to actually DO something constructive, i have a few ideas... How
about contributing to make the Lisp world a better place? Write some code
that performs a useful function. Send SBCL or CMUCL or CLisp or Roger
Corman some code to help their systems become more standards compliant.
Start with one of the open source implementations and show us how to
compile to and integrate the resulting code into the cLR. But for God's
sake, shut up and do something useful, rather than prattling on.
faa
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<·····················@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> .Net is not language centric: everything compiles to CLR and there is a
> common type system. The common type system means you can catch exceptions
> from a module written in a diffent language, and you can extend it (etc.).
Well, if it is not language centric (I would argue that it is), it
certainly is bent on OO methodology.
> In .Net, you can use Scheme (it has a CLR compiler, created by Northwestern
> University). And ML, Haskell, and a lot of other languages are supported
> (by 3rd party vendors).
There should be a big disclaimer to this - both Northwestern and PLT
(they put out an ad for a full-time two year position to port DrScheme
to .Net a couple of months ago) received /very/ (well, compared to
anything they usually receive) large grants from Microsoft to do just
that. I suspect this is also the case for some of ther other .Net
projects.
> .Net also features the best garbage collector ever created (according to the
> person in charge of that department at Microsoft and I have no reason to
> doubt him). LISP gurus were called in to help craft it (sorry, but I won't
> dare drop any names here as I don't think it would be a good idea to do so!)
I think this claim is BS, especially so since it comes from the
"person in charge of that _department_." At the very least it will
make sure all languages run equally slowly. At the worst it will be
biased towards VB and C#.
> So, it would appear that everything is in place for LISP to be very healthy
> because of Microsoft.
Maybe Lisp will benefit slightly from some of the side-effects of .Net
(I don't see how), but I think Microsoft is more interested in
cramming VB and C# down everyone's throats (their IDEs are very
expensive).
> I am pretty current on what's going on at Microsoft however; because that's
> where I think the big break for LISP is most likely to happen. And on that
> count, I'm very optimistic!
I'd keep my eye out more on Microsoft's .Net and Palladium shenanigans
if I were you.
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> "Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote in message
> ··················@beta.franz.com...
> .Net also features the best garbage collector ever created (according to the
> person in charge of that department at Microsoft and I have no reason to
> doubt him).
I have a used car just right for you.
Seriously - you need to qualify the "best".
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245942303929250@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| Many on this list are reacting to me as if I'm a traitor to LISP!
You are, because you think your attacks again Scheme are valid attacks
against Common Lisp, and you do nothing to correct your confusion.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Janis Dzerins
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <twkisz5mhxy.fsf@gulbis.latnet.lv>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> .Net is not language centric: everything compiles to CLR and there is a
> common type system. The common type system means you can catch exceptions
> from a module written in a diffent language, and you can extend it (etc.).
Really? How about this (from JScript (which is MS's Javascript)
documentation):
Note The Date object interoperates with the .NET Framework
System.DateTime data type within JScript .NET. However, other Common
Language Specification (CLS) languages cannot use the Date object
because only JScript .NET provides the object; it is not derived from
a .NET Framework type. Consequently, when type-annotating the
parameters and return types of CLS-compliant methods, make sure to use
the System.DateTime data type instead of the Date object. However, you
may use the Date object to type annotate identifiers other than the
parameters or return types. For more information, see Writing
CLS-Compliant Code.
Date is Javascripts built-in type, which you can't really use. This
goes for many more types, even from C#.
.NET actually is very language centric: all languages are dumebed down
until they fit into CLR. If the language has more features, it
becomes unusable by other CLR languages.
> In .Net, you can use Scheme (it has a CLR compiler, created by Northwestern
> University).
Really? Is it the Scheme defined by R5RS?
> .Net also features the best garbage collector ever created
> (according to the person in charge of that department at Microsoft
> and I have no reason to doubt him).
You forgot to mention it's completely revolutionary.
I actually laughed when reading a book on C# when the author described
the revolutionary way to have primitive types behave like objects --
the concept is called boxing/unboxing.
> LISP gurus were called in to help craft it (sorry, but I won't dare
> drop any names here as I don't think it would be a good idea to do
> so!)
Yeah, try googling in the group archives to read abouth why Franz
dismissed the idea. There are some facts, at least.
> So, it would appear that everything is in place for LISP to be very
> healthy because of Microsoft.
Whom are you trying to fool?
> I've been condescended to pretty intensely on this list as if I'm not
> current on LISP.
People here react to what you write -- there's nothing else we know
about you.
And, by the way, which "LISP" is it that you are current with?
--
Janis Dzerins
If million people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:58:43 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think Microsoft has the coattails to make LISP win and win big; and so I'm
> optimistic that Microsoft is LISP's greatest hope of becoming widespread.
[SHUDDER]
> Javascript is so close to LISP it's more than enough to make me a very happy
> camper.
Your idea of similarity or proximity is too broad for me.
> .Net also features the best garbage collector ever created (according to the
> person in charge of that department at Microsoft and I have no reason to
> doubt him). LISP gurus were called in to help craft it (sorry, but I won't
Such a statement about .NET's garbage collector may be accepted as is by a
teenager mostly familiar with playing videogames or dowloading MP3 files
off the net. But given that it comes from a company with questionable
business ethics, and a strong reliance on marketing (would Microsoft's
marketing department be equally happy if the guy had stated that they had
created a mediocre technology?), you shouldn't be surprised if the members
of a technical forum, especially a Lisp forum, take it with a grain of
salt.
> So, it would appear that everything is in place for LISP to be very healthy
> because of Microsoft.
[SHUDDER]
> I've been condescended to pretty intensely on this list as if I'm not
> current on LISP.
The capitalization you use for Lisp is a hint that you are not current with
what goes on in the Lisp world.
> That's not entirely the case: I'm just current on different things. I'm
> not as interested in what LISP vendors are up to (I do keep tabs on them
This is interesting. Users continually ask for more and better libraries
and tools, but you are not interested in what vendors do about this.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4pttc58bf.fsf@beta.franz.com>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> (BTW, there's a "k" at the end of my name.)
Sorry about that; the gnus Summary outline cuts off the name after
20 characters, and I hadn't noticed the k at the end in the posts.
> I wish you had attended my talk because I covered a lot of stuff.
I will get the Conference Proceedings, and will read it then. I must
admit though, that the more you talk here, the less incentive I have
to read your paper. Perhaps you can make it available online somewhere,
so I can get the points you want to make as you wanted to present
them.
> Many on this list are reacting to me as if I'm a traitor to LISP!
Not me. My reaction to you is as one who does not understand Lisp.
Common Lisp, that is. Your obvious ties to and understanding of Scheme
and the prejudices it has produced in you against Lisp ony solidifies
my view that learning Scheme before CL is definitely a Bad Thing.
But I don't view you as a traitor to CL; you cannot betray something
you were never part of to start with.
> If they had only heard my talk!
If your paper says what your actual talk has, then you can rectify that
by publishing it.
> I am even more optimistic about LISP than you are!
Amazing. I have put my livlihood and career on the line for Lisp, and
you have not. I have spoken about what is, and you have spoken about
what isn't and what should be. Your statement is ridiculous as it
stands, because you are not at all optimistic about Lisp, only
about its concepts and how it will propagate into the rest of industry
(a fact that everyone in the Lisp community has known for many years).
Yes, I admit I am not optimistic about Scheme. It will remain, as you
say, an academic R&D language; that is what its community seems to
desire, and that is not in line with my desires. But we're not talking
about the same language, here.
So I'm curious, since you made such a bold statement: what is it that
makes you think I'm not optimistic about Lisp?
> Javascript is so close to LISP it's more than enough to make me a very happy
> camper.
I'm glad you're happy. But it's not close enough to Lisp to make everyone
happy.
> On the server side, the situation is even rosier for LISP via Microsoft.
> (On a server, you can do anything you want!)
Of course.
> .Net is not language centric: everything compiles to CLR and there is a
> common type system. The common type system means you can catch exceptions
> from a module written in a diffent language, and you can extend it (etc.).
>
> In .Net, you can use Scheme (it has a CLR compiler, created by Northwestern
> University). And ML, Haskell, and a lot of other languages are supported
> (by 3rd party vendors).
Good for them. Let's see how many people actually buy these as a product.
What are the benchmarks for these products?
> .Net also features the best garbage collector ever created (according to the
> person in charge of that department at Microsoft and I have no reason to
> doubt him). LISP gurus were called in to help craft it (sorry, but I won't
> dare drop any names here as I don't think it would be a good idea to do so!)
The discussion about the appropriateness of .NET for CL has already taken
place at least twice on this newsgroup, and I don't care to repeat myself
yet again. Some have already refuted your claims of CRL's superiority, and
if you did just a little googling, you would see similar statements last year
and the year before that.
> So, it would appear that everything is in place for LISP to be very healthy
> because of Microsoft.
Microsoft give not one rip about Lisp. Microsoft is just another platform,
and has nothing to do with the health of Lisp.
> I've been condescended to pretty intensely on this list as if I'm not
> current on LISP.
You've been corrected pretty heavily on this list because you are not
current on Lisp (though, given your Scheme background and emphasis, I
can now see why).
> That's not entirely the case: I'm just current on different things. I'm
> not as interested in what LISP vendors are up to (I do keep tabs on them
> however!) because I don't think that's ultimately going to be the hope of
> LISP.
Being part of a vendor, I cannot comment directly to your statement
objectively. However, I can say that our customers all tend to
see it differently than you, and are always concerned about what
we (the vendors) are doing. I'm sure it is the same with all of
the CL vendors' customers, as well.
> I am pretty current on what's going on at Microsoft however; because that's
> where I think the big break for LISP is most likely to happen. And on that
> count, I'm very optimistic!
You're a man looking under a light pole for a coat he lost in the dark
alley. Am I pessimistic because I think you're not going to find your
coat? Well, yes, probably so. But when I, using my flashlight in the
alley, happened to find your coat, would you even recognize it when I
gave it to you?
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
"Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote in message ··················@beta.franz.com...
>
> You're a man looking under a light pole for a coat he lost in the dark
> alley. Am I pessimistic because I think you're not going to find your
> coat? Well, yes, probably so. But when I, using my flashlight in the
> alley, happened to find your coat, would you even recognize it when I
> gave it to you?
That's a new take!
A Sage comes across a man searching the ground outside his house.
Sage: "What are you looking for?"
Man: "I lost a needle, it's very important."
Sage: "Well, where did you lose it?".
Man: "In the house.".
Sage: "Why are you not looking in the house then?"
Man: "There is not enough light in there to see."
Wade
"Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote in message
··················@beta.franz.com...
> Your obvious ties to and understanding of Scheme
> and the prejudices it has produced in you against Lisp ony solidifies
> my view that learning Scheme before CL is definitely a Bad Thing.
> But I don't view you as a traitor to CL; you cannot betray something
> you were never part of to start with.
To correct you presumption, I used CL professionally before ever having
learned Scheme.
Given all the hostility and presumption you've shown me, I have no interest
in addressing anything else in your post.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> > Lisp has indeed been sent into space.
>
> I don't really want to take sides because I have very mixed feelings about
> the issue, but for the sake of informing the debate I would like to point
> out that the net result of Lisp's being sent into space was not altogether
> positive. See http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html for the gory
> details.
Was it, in your view, also a technological failure?
And BTW, is that the way they choose their technology at the JPL? A
casual "Get rid of X", and that's it? No evidence, no numbers? What
did the other guys that where working with lisp say?
Why could he get away with this if - as you say - the reasons did not
hold water?
In article <··············@cupid.igpm.rwth-aachen.de>, Mario S. Mommer
<········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> > In article <·············@beta.franz.com>, Duane Rettig
<·····@franz.com> wrote:
> > > Lisp has indeed been sent into space.
> >
> > I don't really want to take sides because I have very mixed feelings about
> > the issue, but for the sake of informing the debate I would like to point
> > out that the net result of Lisp's being sent into space was not altogether
> > positive. See http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html for the gory
> > details.
>
> Was it, in your view, also a technological failure?
No. Once again, it is hard for me to understand how someone could read
what I wrote and still ask this question.
> And BTW, is that the way they choose their technology at the JPL? A
> casual "Get rid of X", and that's it? No evidence, no numbers? What
> did the other guys that where working with lisp say?
No, these circumstances were unusual (in many ways). But JPL is a very
hardware-centric culture, and software decisions are often made using the
heuristic that it's best to do what everyone else is doing. This is why
Lisp would be a much easier sell around here if it were used more. I
believe JPL is not unique in this regard.
> Why could he get away with this if - as you say - the reasons did not
> hold water?
From his point of view the reasons did hold water. (I need to update the
article to make this clearer.) His job was scoped in such a way that he
was saddled with (some of) the costs of Lisp while enjoying none of its
benefits.
The reason I was angry with this person is not that he said what he did,
but that he said what he did after declining an offer of help in
addressing the problems he was having. IMO, at that point he had no more
right to complain about those problems. But that doesn't mean the
problems weren't real.
E.
From: Timothy Moore
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <aqkab6$a15$0@216.39.145.192>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> > I would much prefer to apply LISP by writing a LISP interpreter inside a
> > conventional application than to actually use LISP from a LISP vendor. I'd
> > learn a great deal more by having to implement the LISP I use rather than
> > using a LISP someone else wrote.
Why don't you write a server-side Lisp to Javascript
translator/compiler? That'd let you test out your thesis about the
desirability of LispScript or whatever, and give you the chance to do
some implementation hacking. Cons is trivial :)
Tim
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4k7jmb4fe.fsf@beta.franz.com>
Timothy Moore <·····@bricoworks.com> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
> > "Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > > I would much prefer to apply LISP by writing a LISP interpreter inside a
> > > conventional application than to actually use LISP from a LISP vendor. I'd
> > > learn a great deal more by having to implement the LISP I use rather than
> > > using a LISP someone else wrote.
>
> Why don't you write a server-side Lisp to Javascript
> translator/compiler? That'd let you test out your thesis about the
> desirability of LispScript or whatever, and give you the chance to do
> some implementation hacking. Cons is trivial :)
Your response is confusing (you are responding to my post, but to
the previous poster's content). Just in case, check out the second
paragraph (i.e. the Java Tool Suite) at:
http://www.franz.com/products/connectivity_tools/
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
"Duane Rettig" <·····@franz.com> wrote in message
··················@beta.franz.com...
> As I stated at the beginning of my response, I didn't see your talk, nor
> have I yet read your paper. I am responding _only_ to the responses you
> have been giving in this thread, and nothing else.
That makes it a lot harder for me because I'm having to cover stuff I've
already covered; but I'll give it a try.
> From this response and other responses previously, below, and in other
> threads, it is obvious that you have had little contact with the Lisp
> world for many years (I notice you even spell it the old way - LISP
instead
> of Lisp, which is no big deal, but telling).
My spelling of LISP is not telling at all. I spell it like that from a
linguistic perspective because it is an acronym and I believe it should be
capitalized regardless what the trends are (and they vary).
Many spell it Lisp; many also spell it lisp. (Seems to me Schemers and unix
oriented people are more likely to spell it: lisp.)
It is not fair to say I've been away from the industry; rather that I have
been focused on conventional technologies.
You are very CL-centric! I am very Scheme centric.
If I had more time, I'd be much more likely to explore ML than CL.
For about the last 10 to 15 years I've seen CL shoved out the door in far
too many companies. Even think tanks are dumping lisp (I'm spelling it
differntly for you!) in favor of Microsoft technologies.
So, while you want to characterize me as having been away from the industry,
I'd characterize it more as lisp got tossed out of all the industries I live
and move in!
And yet I've still kept up with it as best I could given that it is only not
a bread and butter skill for any companies I've worked for for quite a whie.
It is even a bit risky to mention in the companies I work at (you are likely
to be seen as impractical).
I'm aware of the success stories on the Franz web site. But from where I
sit; even bread and butter AI applications that are deployed 24/7 and making
lots of money are leaving LISP behind in favor of conventional technologies.
Even the most die hard fans say they lost nothing but a little nostalgia.
> > I'm happy to hear that, but haven't seen anything yet that I'd consider
very
> > ubiquitous.
>
> You haven't been looking in the right places.
If it was ubiquitous I wouldn't have to look in the "right" places. It
would be so prevalent I couldn't avoid it!
I hear LISP people complain about Microsoft a lot. Why? Because they truly
are ubiquitous!
When people start complaining about LISP like that; that's what I'd call
ubiquitous.
> > Some battles have been lost. Some can still be won. I wanted to focus
on
> > the latter rather than the former.
>
> You view markets as battles won or lost. You have the wrong analogy.
I think war is a very apropos analogy despite the synergy required in high
tech.
> > > > However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at
marketing
> > > > LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
> > >
> > > How does a language, which has no hardware coattails to ride behind
like
> > > C/C++, but which supports four or five commercial vendors and at least
> > > as many free/opensource vendors, fail badly at marketing? Does it
need
> > > 100% of all markets to be sucessful?
> >
> > I found the above a bit obtuse to parse, but assuming I'm following
you...
>
> Probably the reason why it seems obtuse to you is because you've been out
> of the Lisp industry for so long. You should take another look.
I just now follow what you mean: you mean that you think c/c++ has an
advantage because you think the hardware is geared to those languages and
that LISP is still doing pretty well despite the hardware not being
optimized to LISP.
(I don't think of the hardware as being c++ centric like you do but I
suppose in some ways it is.)
Yes, LISP is on a lot of platforms: that's not my metric for marketing
success!
When you open the job section of the paper, how many employers ask for LISP
vs. Microsoft solutions?
> Lisp does run on almost all stock hardware. What's the problem?
Most employers don't want it; many that had it dumped it or are in the
process of dumping what little remains. And when they do they suffer no
adverse affects and maybe even see appreciable benefits. I'm talking
reverse success stories here!! That's a big problem.
I could be more specific here, but I'm afraid to drop company names
around!!! Believe me from the inside, and what I have knowledge of, the
situation is absolutely horrible for LISP. I mean really serious! I mean
that as much as I love LISP, Scheme, and many other things like that; using
the professionally is to commit professional suicide.
In fact, it's like this: an honest philosophy professor will ask students
on the first day: "How many people are planning on being Philosophy
majors?...Please stay after class, I want to talk some sense into you.".
If I was a professor, I'd use Scheme as the lingua franca but I would warn
students about LISP as a career choice. Based on what I've witnessed in the
industry, I would feel morally obligated to do so and make a clear
distinction between fun and good career choices.
I would not try to poison anyone; just tell it like it is.
> > Why didn't LISP lead the way in the first place so that we never had to
see
> > XML? Or HTML?
>
> So of course, XML got to its target, because that's where it was headed.
That's not a satisfactory answer for me.
> > Testers and users are wonderful. The more the merrier.
>
> These are all fine and wonderful, and the Lisp world is doing this.
I'm hoping the tide will turn, believe me!!
> Of course, you missed much of the good stuff at the conference, since you
> only stayed for one day. But I can understand that; a conference is
> expensive.
Actually the expense was the least of it. ILC was extremely cheap compared
with an ACM conference. The worst of it for me was having to use of what
little vacation time I have when I have to save it for other things.
> However, you can also see a lot of what is happening by looking
> at a few websites, including ours, for free and without driving too far.
I'm on the Franz mailist list and have been for a long time. I check in on
the Franz web site from time to time and I read all the mailings I get
electronically. (I'm not as away from the industry as you say I am!)
> Unfortunately, you haven't answered my question once. Precisely _what_
> R&D are you talking about? I want specific cases. If you have none,
> then you have no point to make.
MzCOM. This is Rice's Scheme wrapped up as a COM object.
I spent a lot of time testing it, and experimenting with it. If I had more
time, I'd work more with it and create more code examples to show
applications of it.
I've also got oodles of articles written that I haven't had time to follow
through on publishing yet. Including an article on deriving the X
combinator.
I'm also working on a series of articles on using LISP concepts in
Javascript and I intend to show examples in both Scheme and Javascript. If
I had the time I'd like to write a book on this topic.
In addition I'm working on a Scheme implementation in Javascript coded in a
purely object oriented fashion.
I'm also very interested in HTCs: these are HTML components. Essentially,
COM components written in script. I think these are an important technology
that are going to become very important in the future (hopefully serving as
a bridge to LISP). You can put first class functions into HTC attributes!
I've done it in Javascript. I'd like to be able to do it using Scheme as a
scripting language one day!
I'm currently working on an HTC project that is important to what I do
professionally but also has ramifications for my general interests in that
direction.
If I had more time I'd like to create a hook into the Scripting Host so that
I could plug a scripting engine into Internet Explorer. Rice wants someone
to do this work and they want to call the project MzScript but they rely on
volunteers (like many other LISP projects do). The trouble is if you work
full time, it's enormously hard to find time for such things and still
sleep. The scripting host interface is not well documented, and with the
advent of .Net the entire game has been changed with the rug having been
pulled out from the way the game was played in the past.
Fortunately, it looks like Microsoft will be funding the Rice PLT; so
hopefully things will get better. I have the time to beta test but not the
time to do the necessary development: it's a big job.
I'm reading through Structure and Interpretation for a 2nd time with an eye
to coding some of the examples in Javascript (along with some favorite LISP
examples from the past).
I'm also going through the book (cover to cover): "LISP In Small Pieces"
and I would like to code all the interpreters and compilers in both Scheme
and Javascript to show that Javascript truly is LISP with C syntax.
I also have function/fractal plotting code in LISP that I want to move over
to Javascript and DHTML. I might have to write my own graphics module for
this using custom line drawing code.
I also have an ML book that I want to go through; in particular the Lambda
Calculus interpreter.
(There are many other books I'd like to read on everything from lattices, to
denotational semantics.)
I also have been doing work on a lambda calculus interpreter, wanting to
convert it to a myriad of different formats: XML, Javascript, etc..
I also am looking into XSLT and doing LISPy things with XML and XSLT.
> > I think pondering estorery when your house is burning down is not a good
> > idea.
>
> I don't know estorery; I assume you mean esoterica. What esoterica are we
> pondering? Specifically?
Typo: esotery.
ACM conferences are full of papers about proving things like whether the
Milner Mycroft calculus is tractable.
The LISP community is the brain trust of the world for lambda calculus and
denotational semantics and other calculii and formal systems; but how about
some more applied research on getting LISP more mainstream?
> > Writing, education, participation in fixing bugs and suggesting
> > improvements, participating in R&D, beta testing. At some point I want
to
> > participate more closely with the actual standards process rather than
going
> > through intermediaries.
>
> But not in the Lisp community, right?
Most definitely in the LISP community!!!! And in the Javascript/Microsoft
world too.
> I have no problem with this, nor do
> I have any problem with you making improvements to other communities in
the
> direction of Lisp. My only gripe is that you made statements in your post
> about the Lisp community that were clearly out of sync with reality.
I don't think my observations about marketing are wrong at all!
> Philip Greenspun codified
> it into his "Tenth rule of programming"...
He's right. Is the solution that the entire world needs to use CL? It must
be more widespread first. Hence a goal of making it more widespread.
Or, maybe a Scheme that has more facilities could fit the bill.
However, the 10th rule of programming is out of date: given current
conventional tools it's possible to code LISPy things now and get them
right. GC is fully mainstream now, for instance. That's why it's so
lucrative for companies to dump LISP. They can get the same things in
conventional languages and not have to hire LISP programmers, which are rare
compared with all the talent they have doing conventional technologies.
Think about it from the employers standpoint: if everything was
conventional things would be more uniform. The same tools used for AI (or
do you prefer Ai? ;-) are used for everything else. Uniformity is wonderful
and financial lucrative.
> It's
> almost as if you beleive that Lisp is an academic language only, with no
> commercial inroads.
Those inroads aren't viable as a "solution for the rest of us". At least
not yet.
> What I get from your posts is that you believe that Lisp is a concept, not
> a language. OK, it is a concept, and you are free and encouraged to take
> the Lisp gestalt out into the rest of the language world (indeed, that is
> what is happening). But Lisp is in fact a real language, used in real
> applications, for real purposes. It makes a few people a lot of money,
> some people enough money, and it serves as an excellent hobby for those
> who are into that. Lisp is not R&D.
I never said LISP was R&D. I don't know where you got that. LISP has R&D
but I never claimed that it "is" R&D.
I'm at the point that I think LISP the language isn't going to be viable in
the mainstream any time soon (especially given many of the defensive
attitudes so prevalent); so the next best thing it to go to the source of
LISP and just steal the concepts and apply them directly to conventional
technology and just forget LISP if need be.
> Lisp will never be as ubiquitous as you desire. You've made your position
> and choice clear.
I'm more optimistic than that. I think it could be and should be. I think
the world suffers gratuitous complexity due to LISP not being the lingua
franca and the most prevalent technology.
> > The only part I do mind is personal attacks.
>
> I don't feel attacked. Do you?
No.
But I have been, and Microsoft and those who like Microsoft get attacked at
lot in certain circles. I've seen LISPers display very vitriolic and
irrational hatred for Microsoft. That doesn't work for me because Microsoft
has been a good thing for me. They have been my liberator in many ways; and
so I'm viewed as selling out and sleeping with the enemy.
I've watched really nasty stuff go on in academia and on the internet. For
instance, I believe it was on a TCL thread a while back, there was a really
nasty flame fest. I just sat on the sidelines and watched. I was
dumbfounded at how lofty people with lofty titles could act like children
and write nasty e-mails laced with obscenities; then people would post them
publicly for humiliation value. What a jihad style holy war.
That's nuts. That's why I often stay away from Usenet and just user search
engines to find things on threads rather than reading groups. (The other
reason is it is a time sink usually.)
> No, Lisp got burned by the AI collapse.
Oh please!
To some extent that's true, but LISP has shot itself in the foot too, in
many ways.
I can't see blaming it all on the AI collapse.
> Lisp is just now on its way back out of that
> winter.
I hope so. If LISP just stays steady with a limited market share, that's
not all bad. Maybe a few niche markets. That could be enough to stay
healthy.
Having a consistent presence would be a good thing, with less ups and downs.
A small market share isn't nearly as bad as having drastic ups and downs!!!
And to some extent, Franz is doing that: maintaining consistency. They
have been a solid player from the early days, and I think that is truly
wonderful and I wish them and you all the best.
> > I also have little faith in the world, which I see as a house of cards.
I'm
> > surprised it stays together as well as it does! Part of my philosophy
of
> > the ubiquitous is to be as survivable as humanly possible.
>
> Interesting philosophy. I'm glad I don't adhere to it.
I don't want to sound like a survivalist. I just want to be pragmatic and
less vulnerable to market vagaries.
> > If war and recession cause societal collapse; all that is estoeric will
be
> > for naught. It must remain in moth balls for a better day. R&D thrives
on
> > the fat of society!
> >
> > But all that is practical will survive. That is where I want to be!
>
> This is too funny. Where will JavaScript be if society collapses?
A lot better off than LISP! If there is a serious depression or deep
recession, Javascript will be a good skill to have; assuming the collapse
isn't total. Things will peal off with the least applied going first. The
more widespread technologies will fare much better.
Even if everything goes haywire, people will still want basic services.
When 9-11 happened, a lot of luxury services dried up for quite a while
(cruise ships, even hotels in Vegas were hurting!).
In fact, I dare say Javascript is quite the thing to know: if something
horrible happens, people will want to get on the internet to find out all
that they can; and Javascript is the most prevalent language used on the
internet.
> It is really a half-silvered morror. You only see the wall from your
side.
> From the lisp side, there are connections to many other languages.
That's not enough! The biggest, healthiest employers don't want LISP: it
is NOT a bread and butter skill!
> Telecommuting is a possibility nowadays. But in order to tellecommute in
> a Lisp job, you must be up-to-date on Lisp technology. You won't get that
> by programming Javascript.
Well that's the age old catch 22.
I will focus on things commensurate with what makes sense. As LISP gets
healthier, I could probably focus more on it. To the extent it isn't; it
just simply doesn't make sense to focus on it unless my goal is a LISP job.
LISP yes; but not at any price! Only if it makes sense. This for me is
akin to the patriotism adage: "My country, but only if right!" rather than
"My country right or wrong.".
There are some things that would make me move over to LISP: if Microsoft
were to adopt it; then I most definitely would and very very very fast!
If I have to start using .Net, then I will definitely spend more time on
LISP because .Net is very LISP friendly (there is a Scheme that compiles to
CLR in .Net). That is a likely avenue of LISP breaking into the mainstream
for me and many others.
I'm going to go with the flow and see how things change and adjust
accordingly.
> > If Franz wants to work on a ubiquitous LISP, I'd be happy to talk with
> > Franz! (It never hurts to talk...)
>
> Sure. We'd gladly sell you our ubiquitous Lisp. Check out our website,
> and download a trial version.
I might do that some time: it's on my list of things to do.
I already researched the price. (I'm more in tune with what's going on in
the industry than you say I am!)
As it is, for me as an individual it would cost $3,000. That's definitely
not a solution for me! If you guys had a LISP for $200 max; then I'd
happily buy it.
(Actually, I've had conversations with others at Franz about the company's
future directions and it sounded encouraging to me, but it would not be
appropriate for me to say more than that.)
Until then, I'll stick with Scheme: it's free and does just fine for my
purposes.
And Internet Explorer with its free Javascript.
Javascript is also 100% free and I can get updates on-line for free as they
are available; also the script debugger is 100% as is the browser (Internet
Explorer 6).
Given how close Javascript is to LISP; you can easily see that using it to
write stand alone applications and GUIs using DHTML fits with my philosophy
of the ubiquitous. In fact, it's the only thing that does at this time.
And, many companies are using Javascript and Internet Explorer for exactly
that purpose: writing applications that will run on corporate intranets
(and even on the open internet, but for that .Net is definitely the right
thing).
The script debugger is also 100% free. And IE (internet explorer) supports
XML too.
Hopefully with Rice getting Microsoft funding; perhaps they can come up with
a Scheme solution that approaches a ubiquitous LISP.
Right now Javascript is like ersatz LISP; but it's good enough. Close
enough.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245942222394778@naggum.no>
* Andre van Meulebrouck
| You are very CL-centric! I am very Scheme centric.
People need to be made aware of this fact.
| > I don't know estorery; I assume you mean esoterica. What esoterica are
| > we pondering? Specifically?
|
| Typo: esotery.
Is there no limit to your arrogance? Look up the word "esoterica", if
you even own a dictionary. Or use www.merriam-webster.com
| Right now Javascript is like ersatz LISP; but it's good enough. Close
| enough.
Maybe and even possibly true for Scheme. By your own admission, you do
not know Common Lisp, so even you should be able to understand that it is
not true for Common Lisp.
Confusing Common Lisp and Scheme is permissible /once/ in a human life.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Andre van Meulebrouck
> | > I don't know estorery; I assume you mean esoterica. What esoterica
are
> | > we pondering? Specifically?
> |
> | Typo: esotery.
>
> Is there no limit to your arrogance? Look up the word "esoterica", if
> you even own a dictionary. Or use www.merriam-webster.com
You didn't understand what I said.
I responded to the poster who asked if I meant "esoterica" when I typed
"estorery".
My response was: [It was a] Typo: [I meant to say] esotery.
I was not in any way attempting to correct the poster.
And after that, I've lost any interest in further discussion with you. One
can only take so much presumption, hostility, and abuse.
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> You are very CL-centric! I am very Scheme centric.
> If I was [sic] a professor, I'd use Scheme as the lingua franca
> MzCOM. This is Rice's Scheme wrapped up as a COM object.
> ... I intend to show examples in both Scheme and Javascript.
> In addition I'm working on a Scheme implementation in Javascript coded in a
> purely object oriented fashion.
> I've done it in Javascript. I'd like to be able to do it using Scheme as a
> scripting language one day!
> ... I would like to code all the interpreters and compilers in both
> Scheme and Javascript...
> Or, maybe a Scheme that has more facilities could fit the bill.
> Until then, I'll stick with Scheme: it's free and does just fine for my
> purposes.
> Hopefully with Rice getting Microsoft funding; perhaps they can come up with
> a Scheme solution...
Dude, you're in the wrong newsgroup. Unsubscribe from comp.lang.lisp
and subscribe to comp.lang.scheme -- these newsgroups are separated for
a reason.
"Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom> wrote in message
·······························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> Dude, you're in the wrong newsgroup. Unsubscribe from comp.lang.lisp
> and subscribe to comp.lang.scheme -- these newsgroups are separated for
> a reason.
I think that unsubscribing from this group is a great idea; but I'll pass on
subscribing to the Scheme group.
As it was I was merely following up on a thread that was in this newsgroup,
that's all.
After looking back on past threads in both groups I find I can't stomach the
infighting I see in both groups. I've never seen such uncivil behavior in
any other NGs. I even saw cross posted messages to other language groups
which resulted in requests from the other language groups to be removed from
the LISP infighting threads.
Also the animosity of CL users against Scheme users is evident. Posters on
the Scheme group claim that this group is for all of LISP, not just CL.
Clearly people in this group think CL users own this group even though this
isn't comp.lang.lisp.cl or comp.lang.lisp.common.
I think both the LISP and the Scheme groups are much too wild for my tastes.
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> My spelling of LISP is not telling at all. I spell it like that from a
> linguistic perspective because it is an acronym and I believe it should be
> capitalized regardless what the trends are (and they vary).
Whatever happened to your philosophy:
> When you see the herd is going Microsoft, target Microsoft technologies
What should you do when you see the herd is spelling it Lisp? Or do you
pick and choose which trends you care to follow?
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <87of8xnhgu.fsf@noetbook.telent.net>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
> In fact, I dare say Javascript is quite the thing to know: if something
> horrible happens, people will want to get on the internet to find out all
> that they can; and Javascript is the most prevalent language used on the
> internet.
If something horrible happens, there won't _be_ an Internet.
(Some might argue that that in itself is not so horrible, but ...)
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3bs4xrnix.fsf@cley.com>
* Daniel Barlow wrote:
> If something horrible happens, there won't _be_ an Internet.
There won't be a web anyway. I was in Denmark on the 11-Sep-2001, and
I went back to my hotel and got the news from teletext and broadcast
TV, because there were no reachable news websites at all that I could
find.
--tim
> When you open the job section of the paper, how many employers ask for
LISP
> vs. Microsoft solutions?
>
> > Lisp does run on almost all stock hardware. What's the problem?
>
> Most employers don't want it; many that had it dumped it or are in the
> process of dumping what little remains. And when they do they suffer no
> adverse affects and maybe even see appreciable benefits. I'm talking
> reverse success stories here!! That's a big problem.
Most employers want solutions to their problems. If they happened to
purchase MS stuff, then that's one of their problems.
The problem is that they think in terms of the tools they have or have seen
rather than searching for people to solve the problem. When I call a
plumber, I don't look under the Yellow Pages(tm) for "Stanley Monkey Wrench
Operator", yet that is exactly what business does every day. "Wanted: Person
that can use this tool because I think it will solve my problem." Just like
the pharmaceutical companies are trying to turn consumers into physicians
with 30 second TV ads, the trades try to convert managers into skilled
Information Systems professionals.
When business find people that can actually solve their problems, from a
wide and varied tool box, they are just overjoyed at how well it turns out.
Lisp is a tool as much as Javascript is a tool. I used it in a Microsoft
shop writing J2EE Java code for Suns to create Java code. The customer was
delighted that they were able to change their minds every single day, all
the way up to the last minute, and I never batted an eye. "No problem.
Certainly. Yes, I can do that. Yes, that will be simple." Of course, the
other person they were working with was completely inflexible and whined and
moaned at every turn knowing that each change sent his house of cards down
to the ground. And ya know what? The client had NO IDEA how I was doing "my
magic". Lisp was my tool, yet Java was their solution. The other guy they
had was a "Java coder".
So, yes, THEY DO WANT things like Lisp. They just don't know it.
> The scripting host interface is not well documented, and with the
> advent of .Net the entire game has been changed with the rug having been
> pulled out from the way the game was played in the past.
And you wonder why folks complain about Microsoft. And you chime in on how
Javascript is so popular and is being tested by zillions of people.
Javascript has, what, two? three?? implementations? and how compatible are
they with each other? They're "close"?
ONE implementation is being tested by a lot of people. The others by fewer
people. Ubiquitous Javascript tends to be less portable, and less powerful
than the One True Javascript, for the One True implementation.
Perhaps you only care about the MS version. In that case, who cares about
standards at all? Oh, wait, there's that "rug being pulled out" thing.
> > This is too funny. Where will JavaScript be if society collapses?
>
> A lot better off than LISP! If there is a serious depression or deep
> recession, Javascript will be a good skill to have; assuming the collapse
> isn't total. Things will peal off with the least applied going first.
The
> more widespread technologies will fare much better.
I like this kind of blindness. I see it all the time, and it's fascinating
to watch. You tie the concepts and the technology of something to the actual
implementation and, in this case, the language. This, in my experience,
always leads to failure in the long term for people.
To be specific, in your scenario, the Javascript skill is not what's
important. What is important is an understanding and manipulation of the DOM
model and DHTML. Javascript is a detail. Like all of those "experts" who
learn their DB technologies from assorted wizards and what not, and not from
the actual basics of how databases work, and how to make them perform
(whether with SQL or ISAM methods or what have you). As soon as they're
dropped out of their environment, they're DOA. They discover in environment
Q that the F6 key doesn't do what it did in environment K. And they're at a
loss as to why that is, or how to get around it. F6 ALWAYS worked before, so
how come it doesn't work now?
With Javascript skills, you can move your talents any place Javascript goes.
With DOM and DHTML skills, you can move whereever THEY go, whether it is in
Javascript, VBScript, .NET script, SCHEMEScript, whatever.
And you may rave in wonder at the capabilities of Javascript, and how it's
all so popular, and that all of these coders are getting amazing powers out
of using it. I can assure you, however, that they're not. A select few, you
for example, grok the deeper concepts of Javascript and perhaps push it to
new heights. But a VAST majority of these folks are doing cut-n-paste coding
with barely a thought as to how the stuff they just pasted in works. They
simply don't care.
It's not a Javascript thing either, it's an industry thing. You'd see the
same in Java, Smalltalk, COBOL, etc. Anywhere.
To them, "Javascript" skills are important. These folks can not jump off the
Javascript wagon and on to the ACMEScript wagon.
And also consider the ubiquitous coders who have been writing in Visual
Basic. An environment that has never sat still, that has continued to throw
their coders for a loop every single version. An environement that stays on
top of whatever MS marketing is pumping out that day. "MS has a new version,
so you either learn it all again anew, or stay stuck at where you're at." "I
know Visual Basic! Great, what version? Ummm....VB 3! Sorry, can't use you."
I don't dabble much in Javascript, but I think its got a neat model.
NewtonScript showed that it could be pretty successful and do interesting
things.
Lisp offers more as a tool than most anything else because of the fact that
it evokes a different mindset for those who use it. You may be a classic
example of this. If you did not know or have experience with Lisp, you may
not have seen the depth that the Javascript model has provided. The Lisp
environment opens up a lot of eyes in a lot of ways, and I think it can make
IT people better problem solvers regardless of their environment.
Lisp promotes this mindset because of its capabilites, and because of how it
is used. Javascript, I would guess to say, does not advocate this. I'm sure
a majority of the questions are "how to I make my form field BOLD?". That
is, how do I manipulate the DOM properly with Javascript. That's pretty
narrow thinking, but it's the reality of its environment. Of course, not
100% of folks stop at this level, and some may get deeper into it, but I'd
wager that's not what most people are doing, or are interested in.
The problem with what you're advocating, i.e. splitting Lisp into its
component parts and cherry picking what you like, misses the power of the
entire environment.
As you said, you see Lisp with Javascript, but clearly it's not all there.
Something is missing. Maybe nothing substantial for the task Javascript is
being used for, but it's still missing. You are just fine with that. It's
"lispy" enough for you, and therefore you feel that the stuff you're not
using is not important anymore. "Clearly business only needs the parts they
are using, so let's toss the rest, and make Lisp popular!".
No. Let's not. It's not effective, and it constrains the view. It's better
to have a broader view of tools to view the problem landscape.
For example, if you have issue with the Javascript syntax, there's not much
you can do about it. If you used a meta language, with a syntax you like,
that perhaps filled in your "function.name" slot for you, perhaps you'd be
even more productive, even though it still generates Javascript. One of
those systems where even though you need to debug in the Javascript source
code, you're aware enough to make your changes in your meta language.
Perhaps learning that the more you work in your meta language, the less you
have to debug overall. The closer your language gets to your applications
meaning that your concepts are more directly conveyed to the computer.
You can do all of that with Lisp very easily. You can not do that with
Javascript very easily. Your employer wouldn't know BOO about what you were
doing because all they would see is Javascript, debugged, robust,
"flawless", "portable" Javascript that, amazingly, seems to get all of those
little details right that others keep missing. "How is it that this guy
writes code for both IE and Netscape, in half the time of the rest?" THAT is
what your employer wants. Really. More productive people, generating better
quality deliverables.
And when MS says "Javascript is for sissies, you REALLY need C#Scipt!",
amazingly, your stuff is all ported in two weeks. How about that!
That's the Lispy-ness that other systems just can not pick up. This is where
they break down, and it is very difficult to describe to people, you can
only show them.
This is why if you throw out one piece of Lisp, then you might as well toss
the entire baby.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
Will Hartung wrote:
>
> Lisp is a tool as much as Javascript is a tool. I used it in a Microsoft
> shop writing J2EE Java code for Suns to create Java code. ...
> And ya know what? The client had NO IDEA how I was doing "my
> magic". Lisp was my tool, yet Java was their solution.
I'd love to hear more about how this is done, either your case in
particular or a pointer to some articles/books which describe something
like this. I'm intrigued!
"Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom> wrote in message
······························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> Will Hartung wrote:
> >
> > Lisp is a tool as much as Javascript is a tool. I used it in a Microsoft
> > shop writing J2EE Java code for Suns to create Java code. ...
> > And ya know what? The client had NO IDEA how I was doing "my
> > magic". Lisp was my tool, yet Java was their solution.
>
> I'd love to hear more about how this is done, either your case in
> particular or a pointer to some articles/books which describe something
> like this. I'm intrigued!
I would, but it's not super relevant to the group, and you didn't provide an
email address (mind you I discovered this AFTER I had written an OPUS in
response).
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <aqphij$du8$1@otis.netspace.net.au>
"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> wrote in message
·····························@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom> wrote in message
> ······························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > Will Hartung wrote:
> > >
> > > Lisp is a tool as much as Javascript is a tool. I used it in a
Microsoft
> > > shop writing J2EE Java code for Suns to create Java code. ...
> > > And ya know what? The client had NO IDEA how I was doing "my
> > > magic". Lisp was my tool, yet Java was their solution.
> >
> > I'd love to hear more about how this is done, either your case in
> > particular or a pointer to some articles/books which describe something
> > like this. I'm intrigued!
>
> I would, but it's not super relevant to the group, and you didn't provide
an
> email address (mind you I discovered this AFTER I had written an OPUS in
> response).
You used lisp to do it? It's relevant! Send that opus over... :)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
·················@otis.netspace.net.au...
> You used lisp to do it? It's relevant! Send that opus over... :)
I got several requests for this thing, so I figured I'd post it rather than
send out several copies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
> Will Hartung wrote:
> >
> > Lisp is a tool as much as Javascript is a tool. I used it in a Microsoft
> > shop writing J2EE Java code for Suns to create Java code. ...
> > And ya know what? The client had NO IDEA how I was doing "my
> > magic". Lisp was my tool, yet Java was their solution.
>
> I'd love to hear more about how this is done, either your case in
> particular or a pointer to some articles/books which describe something
> like this. I'm intrigued!
Our application is a J2EE "Care Management System". The basic premise is
that an organization such as a Medical Group would enroll patients into
particular programs to help track their status. Example programs are Cardio
Vascular Disease and Diabetes. I think I'm not alone here on working on such
a project.
The Care Manager would engage the patient with pre-planned questionnaires
that ask about the patients current conditions, habits, history, etc.
Then, while the patient is within the program either the patient would log
in directly, or the Care Manager would contact them with followup questions
and status. So, over time, the data entered into the system would help with
things like tracking a persons weight, or blood pressure or even medication
interactions.
The key to the system was a set of "Rule logic" that checks the data and
creates the next step in the workflow for the patient. For example, the
system could see that a patients weight is going up over a short period, and
that may be a trigger to alert their physician. Things like that.
All of those rules are considered "clinical content", and they're written
by, of all things, Clinicians. Clinician are the medical knowledge for the
project, but they are NOT "computer people".
I had written a scripting language which made it easier to create these
rules, because it made access to the data model much easier and abstracted
the higher end results of the rules (tasks, messages, etc). All of the
clinical content is supposed to be written in this scripting language called
RSL. It's your basic ALGOLesqe scripting language, with simple IF-THEN
statements. Ideally, all of this would be done as some kind of simple expert
system, but what was originally specified and what we have today are
different beasts, so we work with the tools we have.
RSL is organized into execution blocks called Packages, and these were
associated to the questionnaires. While there are, essentially, subroutines
and functions in RSL, the real level of abstraction was the Package, with a
list of variables needed from the database enumerated at the top the file,
in a pacakge-wide namespace, and then followed by the logic.
The clinical content was defined by the clinicians in spreadsheets. They
would specify the variable they were populating, and how it was calculated.
Later they would specify messages based on variable results.
A very simple example:
HEIGHT_FEET -- Height in Feet (prompted variable)
HEIGHT_INCHES -- Height in Inches (prompted variable) [ For "What's your
height in feet and inches"]
WEIGHT_LBS -- Weight in pounds (prompted variable)
TOTAL_HEIGHT = HEIGHT_FEET * 12 + HEIGHT_INCHES
WEIGHT_KILOS = WEIGHT_LBS / 0.6
BMI = WEIGHT_KILOS / TOTAL_HEIGHT
BMI is the "Body Mass Index", and this isn't the actual calculation, just an
example. But basically the BMI lets us easily determine if someone is too
heavy or or not for their size. So, if you were 4ft 2in and weighed 300lbs,
you're "too heavy".
So, given these variables, they would create a rule. (These ratings are
complete BS, I just made them up.)
BMI > 4 -- Message "You're too heavy"
BMI > 3 -- Message "You're just right"
OTHERWISE -- Message "You're too light"
Now, when given this rule, the BMI variable would actually be defined in a
completely different spreadsheet. If I were to code this in RSL, I'd write
something like this:
PACKAGE TEST
VAR HEIGHT_FEET = HEIGHT_FEET // This is how we access vars in the DB
VAR HEIGHT_INCHES = HEIGHT_INCHES // The name after the = identifies the
variable
VAR WEIGHT_LBS = WEIGHT_LBS
WORKVAR TOTAL_HEIGHT = NUMBER // Workvars are local variable, and note that
they're typed.
WORKVAR WEIGHT_KILOS = NUMBER
WORKVAR BMI = NUMBER
TOTAL_HEIGHT = HEIGHT_FEET * 12 + HEIGHT_INCHES
WEIGHT_KILOS = WEIGHT_LBS / 0.6
BMI = WEIGHT_KILOS / TOTAL_HEIGHT
IF BMI > 4 THEN
MESSAGE "You're too heavy"
ELSEIF BMI > 3 THEN
MESSAGE "You're just right"
ELSE
MESSAGE "You're too light"
ENDIF
Pretty straight forward.
But as an RSL Coder, I had to look up BMI, find out that it used
TOTAL_HEIGHT and WEIGHT_KILOS. Then I had to look THOSE up, and find out how
they were defined. Finally, I had to ensure that they were in the proper
order, etc.
The issue was, of course, that there were hundreds of rules and variables,
not simply these few. The other issue was that these were being developed
while they were being coded, and the changes were all very local.
If they changed the definition of BMI, I'd have to go through the code, find
BMI, find out what variables it was using, and if I was thorough, I'd check
to see if the old variables weren't being referenced any more and delete
them. The key being that all of these rules and variables were very
interdependent, so any changes had the potential to ripple through all of
the code. Plus, they were not quite sure which rules (like the BMI rule)
were to fire for which questionnaires. So, if they decided that
Questionnaire A no longer needed the BMI rule, they would take it out. But
since the code was basically designed to handle the individual
questionnaires, then I'd have to change that code as well. Or worse, if BMI
was used in several questionnaires, I'd have to change all of the files that
they were referenced in, and ensure that they're all using the new logic. It
was a real pain.
Now, I saw this issue immediately, and I thought it was terrible.
While I had written the RSL compiler, which converts the RSL into Java, (I
didn't design the language), I had never actually USED RSL for clinical
content. I had never seen the actual clinical content the "Scripters" were
supposed to be creating RSL from. The original goal was that RSL would be
easy enough for the Clinicians to do it themselves. That, obviously, did not
happen.
So, this was my first exposure to real, authentic Clinical Content, and
these relationships between the variables, and their rules was glaring.
So, what I did was I started to code up the spreadsheets I had as simple
structures.
(DEFVAR WEIGHT_LBS type NUMBER desc "Weight in Lbs" class DBVAR)
(DEFVAR WEIGHT_KILOS type NUMBER desc "Weight in kilos" class WORK INIT
(set WEIGHT_KILOS (/ WEIGHT_LBS 0.6)))
(DEFVAR BMI type NUMBER desc "BMI" class WORK INIT
(set BMI (/ WEIGHT_KILOS TOTAL_HEIGHT)))
(MESSAGE BMI-1
(WHEN (> BMI 4) (MESSAGE "You're too heavy"))
(WHEN (> BMI 3) (MESSAGE "You're just right"))
(OTHERWISE (MESSAGE "You're too light")))
I simply just typed everything in like this, just filling in the stuff I
knew into a Lispy syntax, not even sure what I was going to do with it. But
I was confident that I could always quickly generate something if the
project dragged because of this and drop back into "pure RSL".
After I coded the Variables and rules into these structures, I started
writing code to manipulate them. To pick out the dependencies and keep
track.
The beauty of this was that my Lispy stuff was almost one to one with the
specs, save for being in prefix vs infix. It was also very clear very
quickly that this was going to be a great time saver. The dependencies were
"self declaring", just by using a variable in an expression. If I were to
get a change in a calculation, I could simply go to the variable definition
and change it, without worrying about the change bubbling through the code.
The goal started to simply capture all of the info I had available (a simple
spreadsheet), and capture it into a form that was easily manipulated by the
computer. When changes came, I captured those also.
Since there was so much commonality to the rules and their structure, basic
problems with the system were solved just once.
So, in the end I simply wrote a basic "RSL Compiler" to convert these
structures. I was able to define the relationships between the packages and
the rules they contained, as well as the packages and questionnaires that
fed them. And it was all done with little thought. Little up front planning.
Like I said in the beginning I did not know what I was really going to do
with the information when I started, but I knew that a) changes were coming,
and that b) it was going to be a lot easier to work with the "code as data"
concept than just straight code.
Once I had large chunks of the rules and variables coded, the solution
started to present itself. By using the implicit declarations of the the
variables within other variables and rules, it was simple to organize the
data and build dependencies to generate the code correctly. In this case, I
would simply say that a Package contained the BMI-1 message rule, and the
compiler drags in all of its dependents, structured and ordered the
declarations properly, and generated the correct code. If the package
contained BMI-1 and BMI-2, then the common variables would only be used
once, everything would be simply organized. No real rocket science here.
With the compiler doing all of the work, the client was able to send quick
changes over through email after short dicussions via AIM. Once I got the
change, it was usually simple to implement because the monsterous side
effects were all handled automatically. Adding or removing a variable from a
rule could eventually add a dozen or more dependent variables into the final
code, but the change was simply adding the variable to the rule.
When systems have a lot of code, they tend to gain a momentum of their own
and become resistant to change. This system had almost no momentum,
regardless of the number of rules. This lack of momentum also made testing
simpler because as long as the actual information from the original
spreadsheets were captured accurately, the rest of the system would, mostly,
just work. If it didn't work, it was a clinical issue, but not a technical
one.
Late in the project, they completely changed some major pieces of the
specification. Had this been done the original way, I would have had to go
to each rule implementation, beat it into submission, make sure I didn't get
any typos or drop a variable, etc. With the compiler, I added some macros,
once, tweaked the compiler, once, and made some simple changes to the Lispy
source code, and the change was done.
It was also very easy to do things like discover basic things like what
rules depended on what variables, or what variables were simply not in the
spec. That was all done interactively at the listener by simply querying the
data structures that were created and writing a few simple functions.
The other fella working on his own rules had less to do and took longer and
was much more resistant to changes than I was, and for good reason. I
described to the client that I was collecting all of the requirements and
specifications into a large cloud of Stuff and any time they asked, the
cloud would rain down and create a solid structure. But, while in the cloud,
anything can easily be changed. So, while I was keeping the specs in an
etheral state, the other fella had to chisel his into stone by using the
straight RSL code. The later into the project, the more solid his structure
and more difficult any changes were.
I even had time to optimize some of the rules. There were several rules like
IF a AND b then MESSAGE X, ELSE IF a AND c THEN MESSAGE Y. Only the rules
had several common variables. I was able to capture those rules just as
specified, with the redundant conditions, and had the compiler simplify the
expression to get the common ones factored out.
Finally, I didn't "ask permission" to do this, I simply did it. I didn't go
to my boss, or the client and say "Hey, I want to use Lisp here". The task
was "convert this spreadsheet into RSL". THEY wanted the RSL Source Code for
the rules, and that's what my tool created for them. About a week into the
task, my boss wanted some status, and by that time I already had all of the
rules keyed into my format, had the basic structure down, and was moving
ahead. He's not a Lisp Guy, and tends to fear tools, but I assured him I was
ahead of schedule, that changes were easy, and should I ever starting
falling behind, I was always able to "snap shot" all of the Lispy stuff into
pure RSL and go from there, not losing any time in the process.
I think the idea of being able to easily drop back into "conventional mode"
was a reassurance. If all else failed, I could always go back to doing it
the Hard Way. But, certainly there are cultural issues involved and every
place is different.
It's biggest problem, in the end, was that it used too many parentheses in
the generated code, and tended to run long IF statements together on a
single line. I didn't put the time into writing a prettier code generator,
although it was nice and indented, and looked really good. It was even
spitting out comments for what rules were being implemented in which parts.
But, the real nice part was that later, when I wasn't doing any more work on
it, they took all of the generated RSL and reorganized it as RSL. It
probably took the guy more than a week to do what I would have done in 30
minutes, but it showed that the RSL code was viable, useable and readable.
I couldn't have done this without Lisp simply because I would have had to
work on grammars, parsers, lexers, and crap like that. I relied on the
reader and macros to make my "language". I was never behind (save at one
point when my generated RSL was too big for Java, it has an implicit class
size limit), and I took every change they threw at me. I was able to do
simple data manipulations and queries using the listener, I never had a more
sophisticated interface than simply a text editor. No GUI, no nothing.
Overall, it was a complete Lisp hack. Relying on lots of global structures,
I was constantly zapping all of the data, and reloading things, but it was
never slow enough to matter. It was also totally evolutionary. No plan, just
baby steps each way. When I found that I was way ahead I was able to put
time into the optimizers and such, and I had the capacity to absorb the
changes that they were throwing at me.
Obviously not every application falls into the mold. This was something that
had a nice, regular structure, and the RSL was easy to compile code into.
Also, being a code generator, it's not practical in environments where
others do NOT have the tools, and who will end up working on the generated
code rather than the abstract meta language. When they tore my generated
code apart for a later version, there was no going back to my original meta
code. Also, I was fortunate to be the only one on the task, meaning I didn't
have to write the tool for others to use, which would have been a severe
time sink.
It was also really important in that it gave ideas on how we can possibly
redirect how the content is created in the future. If the clinicians can
create those spreadsheet specs that they sent me, then they are really close
to being able to create something just a little more regular and be able to
create the clinical content directly, whether with S-Expr or with a new
grammar and language.
The key is, though, that a lot of this went under the radar. It was a
"results over process" success. If your group is focused more on process
than results, then there's not much you can do. But the other thing is that
it was nice to bring Lisp into the everyday work world for what I was doing.
While people create little scripts all day long, they never seem to think
that they can do the same in Lisp, and leverage them even better later on.
Also, one last thing, this was my first major attack of something in Lisp.
The first time I really used Lisp "in anger". I didn't leverage years of
Lisp experience to pull this off, just years of sitting around here on
c.l.l. and occasionally dabbling a little. I relied mostly on the Hyperspec
to figure things out.
It was great fun to do, because I had all of the rules keyed in. So,
whenever the next stage in the compiler was finished there was lots of code
generated. Whenever a change was made, it was nice to get the change, say,
"Hang on", and a minute later say "All done!", with that minute consumed by
making the change and regenerating the code. The best feature of the tool
was the confidence it gave me that the changes were correct, knowing that
changing A to B was all that was necessary. With large code bases, simple
changes can be very simple, but they don't need to get too complex before
you start doubting and questioning whether you had caught everything.
In the end, the Lisp code was about 1800 lines. The rule code was about 8000
lines, and it generated a boat load of RSL. It was great to see how the
changing of a single variable in one of the rules changed an RSL file from
1700 lines to 2500 lines, and that alone showed how important this process
was to saving my sanity.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: LispInJ: Killer app? [was Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCFE685.9080307@nyc.rr.com>
Brian Palmer wrote:
> Will Hartung wrote:
>
>>Lisp is a tool as much as Javascript is a tool. I used it in a Microsoft
>>shop writing J2EE Java code for Suns to create Java code. ...
>>And ya know what? The client had NO IDEA how I was doing "my
>>magic". Lisp was my tool, yet Java was their solution.
>
>
> I'd love to hear more about how this is done, either your case in
> particular or a pointer to some articles/books which describe something
> like this. I'm intrigued!
Sounds like or at least reminds me of the LispInJ (sp?) tool presented
at the conference. Sorry if I am totally misconstruing what Will was
talking about, but anyway...
...not that I personally want to do anything other than 100% Pure Lisp,
but maybe things like LispInJ could be the killer app for Lisp. If Lisp
is the superset of all languages, maybe vendors should just dash off
code generators for each new language du jour as they pop up. Suddenly
their marketing department can march right into every Mega and MiniCorp
in the world and sell product. And they can spin it as, say, "a Java
code-generator", not CL. ("Oh, no. It's a Java generator. It only looks
like Lisp. We're working on that." Not.)
If we are looking for the Lisp killer app, won't it be something that
leverages its most fundamentally amazing feature, its ability to support
an embedded language? OK, this is a little different because usually we
/implement/ the embedded language in CL and LispInJ just generates Java
source. But for a CL vendor that is a necessary marketing ploy to make
the Java productivity tool palatable to The Great Unwashed: they still
get their beloved Java source.
The LispInJ developer I think conceded, hey, if you muck with the
generated source we can't suck that back into LispInJ. I guess the "fix"
there is not to muck with generated source. I wager they got into that
because they were using LispInJ in-house to do Java consulting for
OtherCorp, so the ultimate consumer of the source had little incentive
not to worry about going back to LispInJ (if they even knew about the
LispInJ). But if a customer can be sold on such a thing, the users would
learn soon enough to make changes to the original LispInJ source.
Now we're talking Ubiquitous Lisp. CL vendors can compete over who has
the best Java or Python or C++ generator. Instead of trying to implement
CL in the VM of Java or CLR, the machines we code to are the source
language specifications. (Nice benefit: no need to worry about runtime
interoperability between Lisp and whatever).
We win over each community at the source level, because CL is best at
syntax. Wait till the best developers in these communities get a taste
of procedural macros. No matter what new language comes along, we co-opt
it and all the development $$$ that get thrown at its compilers, VMs,
and libraries.
C'mon, let's make Java our little bitch.
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> My spelling of LISP is not telling at all. I spell it like that from a
> linguistic perspective because it is an acronym and I believe it should be
> capitalized regardless what the trends are (and they vary).
That something is an acronym doesn't mean it should be fully
capitalized. Do you write "RADAR" and "LASER"? Capitalizing
every letter is particularly inappropriate for "Lisp", because
the "i" and the "s" aren't initial letters of anything;
capitalizing them is actually misleading.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3246044730500749@naggum.no>
* Gareth McCaughan
| Capitalizing every letter is particularly inappropriate for "Lisp",
| because the "i" and the "s" aren't initial letters of anything;
| capitalizing them is actually misleading.
Well, clueless people tend to shout. Some of the most clueless even
write "ADA" because all programming language names are shouted.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Donald Fisk
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DD08B94.7CF4A7C9@enterprise.net>
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * Gareth McCaughan
> | Capitalizing every letter is particularly inappropriate for "Lisp",
> | because the "i" and the "s" aren't initial letters of anything;
> | capitalizing them is actually misleading.
>
> Well, clueless people tend to shout. Some of the most clueless even
> write "ADA" because all programming language names are shouted.
I've yet to see JAVA in otherwise mixed-case text. Or PROLOG
(which is an acronym). It's always Java and Prolog. Perhaps
because they were words in their own right before they became
programming languages.
I tend to have all capitals if it's an abbreviation, e.g. BCPL,
but not if it's an acronym, e.g. Algol or Lisp. One exception
for me is CLOS. It's an acronym, but does anyone write Clos?
> Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Le Hibou
--
Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier?
RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders,
drugs,
sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by
LSD.
Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social
skills.
Donald Fisk <················@enterprise.net> writes:
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> >
> > * Gareth McCaughan
> > | Capitalizing every letter is particularly inappropriate for "Lisp",
> > | because the "i" and the "s" aren't initial letters of anything;
> > | capitalizing them is actually misleading.
> >
> > Well, clueless people tend to shout. Some of the most clueless even
> > write "ADA" because all programming language names are shouted.
>
> I've yet to see JAVA in otherwise mixed-case text. Or PROLOG
> (which is an acronym). It's always Java and Prolog. Perhaps
> because they were words in their own right before they became
> programming languages.
>
> I tend to have all capitals if it's an abbreviation, e.g. BCPL,
> but not if it's an acronym, e.g. Algol or Lisp. One exception
> for me is CLOS. It's an acronym, but does anyone write Clos?
I saw it in a French text somewhere. I remember, because it was kind
of confusing in the context, because the French word "clos" would have
made sense there too. Of course, then again, in French, "Clos" is a
word in its own right.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:32:55 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> When you open the job section of the paper, how many employers ask for LISP
> vs. Microsoft solutions?
How many job openings are you going to find for "US president"?
> I'm on the Franz mailist list and have been for a long time. I check in on
> the Franz web site from time to time and I read all the mailings I get
> electronically. (I'm not as away from the industry as you say I am!)
Well, the Franz mailing list is not that noisy.
> through on publishing yet. Including an article on deriving the X
> combinator.
What was your point about the Lisp community wasting time on esoterica?
> If I had more time I'd like to create a hook into the Scripting Host so that
> I could plug a scripting engine into Internet Explorer. Rice wants someone
[...]
> sleep. The scripting host interface is not well documented, and with the
> advent of .Net the entire game has been changed with the rug having been
> pulled out from the way the game was played in the past.
So much for the survivability of Microsoft technologies.
> I'm also going through the book (cover to cover): "LISP In Small Pieces"
> and I would like to code all the interpreters and compilers in both Scheme
> and Javascript to show that Javascript truly is LISP with C syntax.
If you also code the examples in C, you can show that C is truly Lisp with
C syntax.
> I also have been doing work on a lambda calculus interpreter, wanting to
> convert it to a myriad of different formats: XML, Javascript, etc..
[...]
> The LISP community is the brain trust of the world for lambda calculus and
> denotational semantics and other calculii and formal systems; but how about
> some more applied research on getting LISP more mainstream?
What about esoterica? Oh, never mind...
> However, the 10th rule of programming is out of date: given current
> conventional tools it's possible to code LISPy things now and get them
> right. GC is fully mainstream now, for instance. That's why it's so
Which leaves me wondering why you bother with Lisp at all.
> If I have to start using .Net, then I will definitely spend more time on
> LISP because .Net is very LISP friendly (there is a Scheme that compiles to
> CLR in .Net). That is a likely avenue of LISP breaking into the mainstream
This proves that .NET is not Lisp-friendly :)
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Craig Brozefsky
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <877kfm796b.fsf@piracy.red-bean.com>
> My bottom line, non-negotiable starting point is that I only want to use the
> most ubiquitous tools that are available (and that is never LISP, at least
> not yet); and to be as recession proof as possible, and to be as mainstream
> as possible.
Well, I think your tool requirement is a condition of your economic
strategy. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that you believe that your
experience in mainstream and ubiquitous tools will offer you the
largest market for your skills and thus a higher price, as well as
more security against having no buyer. But consider the situation of
someone who is not selling their skill as a programmer, but instead a
product which solves a specific problem. If they are small companies,
like most if not all CL shops are, then they need to maintain the
advantage they get with using lisp tools, in terms of increased
productivity and quality of life.
When you talk about how the lisp community should spend its money, but
have at the core of your economic model a belief that excludes the
very tools that community is using, identify with, and are dependent
upon, you are going to roll eyes.
> I also have little faith in the world, which I see as a house of cards. I'm
> surprised it stays together as well as it does! Part of my philosophy of
> the ubiquitous is to be as survivable as humanly possible.
It is not the ubiquitous that survive. It's likely that a greater
portion of any strife to come around will be visited upon the poor and
non-white of the world. They also happen to be the most ubiquitous.
I think you should reconsider how well you understand evolutionary
theory, particularly the social-darwinism you are espousing. That was
done before the end of the 1920s, and has only recently been revived
by neo-liberalism as a way of explaining away responsibility for the
failures of their policies.
> If war and recession cause societal collapse; all that is estoeric will be
> for naught. It must remain in moth balls for a better day. R&D thrives on
> the fat of society!
Programming will be for naught.
Your non-negotiable starting point is in direct opposition the actual
users of lisp, and is based on an old misapplication of a scientific
theory which has been ressurected to explain away responsibility for
the very strife you are trying to avoid. I take your earnestness at
face value, why else would you fund your own trip to the ILC, but
think you have fallen victim to some ambient memes. It might be worth
it to drop your non-negotiables and listen to some posters here.
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"Craig Brozefsky" <·····@red-bean.com> wrote in message
···················@piracy.red-bean.com...
>
> > My bottom line, non-negotiable starting point is that I only want to use
the
> > most ubiquitous tools that are available (and that is never LISP, at
least
> > not yet); and to be as recession proof as possible, and to be as
mainstream
> > as possible.
>
> Well, I think your tool requirement is a condition of your economic
> strategy. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that you believe that your
> experience in mainstream and ubiquitous tools will offer you the
> largest market for your skills and thus a higher price, as well as
> more security against having no buyer. But consider the situation of
> someone who is not selling their skill as a programmer, but instead a
> product which solves a specific problem. If they are small companies,
> like most if not all CL shops are, then they need to maintain the
> advantage they get with using lisp tools, in terms of increased
> productivity and quality of life.
Let me make sure I'm following you:
You are saying smaller players have less money and are using CL because it
gives them some efficiency advantages that they couldn't get from
conventional tools.
Thus, the philosophy of the ubiquitous I espouse may good for a programmer,
but not so good for some small companies (which get hurt by this strategy).
Here is my reply:
That is why I suggest LISP vendors make CL work under .NET as a CLR
language!
That is why I suggest riding the juggernaut rather then being crushed by it
(this goes for everyone from programmers to vendors, to companies).
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3heepqqum.fsf@cley.com>
* Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> That is why I suggest LISP vendors make CL work under .NET as a CLR
> language!
> That is why I suggest riding the juggernaut rather then being crushed by it
> (this goes for everyone from programmers to vendors, to companies).
You're assuming that .NET is going to win. This isn't clear. Given
the finite resources of Lisp vendors, they probably either can
continue with native-code systems, until it is very clear whether .NET
will win, or they can invest (large) effort in a .NET system, putting
their native-code systems on hold. The first strategy means they will
not be early .NET adopters, but they will survive if .NET fails. The
second means they will probably die if .NET fails (and may die if it
succeeds because they will lose native-code customers in the
meantime). This is similar to the bet that Lucid made, and look what
happened to them.
--tim
From: Craig Brozefsky
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <87wunk5wk1.fsf@piracy.red-bean.com>
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
Your answer doesn't really address the point of my post, nor do I see
how porting CL to .NET is going to help anyone. As someone who uses
CL all day, it's basically the LAST thing I want to see done because
it will destroy the very advantage I was talking about. I simply
don't see how that concrete manifestation of your "ride the
juggernaut" theory is going to be good for me.
> Thus, the philosophy of the ubiquitous I espouse may good for a programmer,
> but not so good for some small companies (which get hurt by this strategy).
>
> Here is my reply:
>
> That is why I suggest LISP vendors make CL work under .NET as a CLR
> language!
> That is why I suggest riding the juggernaut rather then being crushed by it
> (this goes for everyone from programmers to vendors, to companies).
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> I feel we have an obligation to serve.
What you're saying is that /you/ feel you have an obligation to serve,
but it's not really the case. You presented your talk and paper not out
of a sense of selfless service but to sell to others your own selfish
view of how you think things should be done in the hopes that others
will find it useful and will join in to promote /your/ cause, which
ultimately benefits you. This isn't service -- it's salesmanship. If
you truly feel the obligation to serve, then you should post a message
saying "tell me what to do and I'll do it". There's a number of real-
world Lisp projects (practical, not just R&D) which I'm sure could make
use of your willingness to serve out of obligation.
"Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom> wrote in message
·······························@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> >
> > I feel we have an obligation to serve.
>
> You presented your talk and paper not out
> of a sense of selfless service but to sell to others your own selfish
> view of how you think things should be done in the hopes that others
> will find it useful and will join in to promote /your/ cause, which
> ultimately benefits you.
I disagree with your second guessing of my motives and wonder how you think
you can make such determinations. (It seems very presumptive to me.)
The purpose of conferences is to present ideas as food for thought. Take it
as that. Take it or leave it.
As to who is ultimately to benefit: it would be the world at large first
and foremost (a world drowning in needless complexity) and the LISP
community secondarily. A win for LISP would be a tide that floats all
boats.
My only benefit would be less frustration as the tools get better.
I don't know if I would get much more out of it other than that and some
personal satisfaction.
> This isn't service -- it's salesmanship.
There is an element of both. (There darn well should be!)
I have no problems with salesmanship and wish the LISP community didn't
either!!! =:0)
> If
> you truly feel the obligation to serve, then you should post a message
> saying "tell me what to do and I'll do it".
Why do I need others to tell me what to do? I've thought about the problem
a lot and seen a lot from my experiences in industry. I think I know
exactly what to do and I'm already doing everything I can (the only way for
me to do more would be to win the lottery).
> There's a number of real-
> world Lisp projects (practical, not just R&D) which I'm sure could make
> use of your willingness to serve out of obligation.
I affiliate with groups as I see fit and I think I'm on the right track just
as I am.
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> "Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom> wrote...
> > Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel we have an obligation to serve.
> >
> > You presented your talk and paper not out
> > of a sense of selfless service but to sell to others your own selfish
> > view of how you think things should be done in the hopes that others
> > will find it useful and will join in to promote /your/ cause, which
> > ultimately benefits you.
>
> I disagree with your second guessing of my motives and wonder how you think
> you can make such determinations. (It seems very presumptive to me.)
Your motives don't concern me. It's your statement. What you have done
is not the act of a servant so you have contradicted yourself. One who
is a servant acts on the orders of a master. You acted on the desires
of your self. Hence, this is far from serving or being a servant.
> The purpose of conferences is to present ideas as food for thought. Take it
> as that. Take it or leave it.
Exactly. So why this socialist crap about being a servant? That you
feel you have an obligation to serve suggests a guilt complex. To not
serve would mean that you have neglected your duties.
> As to who is ultimately to benefit: it would be the world at large first
> and foremost (a world drowning in needless complexity) and the LISP
> community secondarily. A win for LISP would be a tide that floats all
> boats.
>
> My only benefit would be less frustration as the tools get better.
So you presented your talk and wrote your paper for the benefit of the
world at large, and the community second. I thought you "detest
communism, and any form whatsoever of Socialism". Yet here you espouse
the exact views of the ultimate socialist -- your work is to benefit the
world, with benefit to yourself being merely a side effect. How does
this fit into the notion of being "extremely conservative"?
> > This isn't service -- it's salesmanship.
>
> There is an element of both. (There darn well should be!)
So why call it an "obligation to serve"? If you feel like being a true
servant, your needs shouldn't enter into the equation at all.
> I have no problems with salesmanship and wish the LISP community didn't
> either!!! =:0)
Well, this is a different matter altogether. To whom do you refer when
you mention the Lisp community? Is this the faceless masses you are
unable to identify who have somehow not lived up to your notion of what
you think should be done? Doesn't that seem very presumptive to you?
> > If
> > you truly feel the obligation to serve, then you should post a message
> > saying "tell me what to do and I'll do it".
>
> Why do I need others to tell me what to do?
That is the nature of being a servant, of feeling the obligation to
serve others. Or have you forgotten what you wrote:
"I feel we have an obligation to serve. But if being of service
means being a target; I no longer feel any obligation to serve (at least
not in that type of venue). There is a difference in being a servant
and being an abused toadie."
Every servant needs a master. Who's your master?
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DCF11AC.5010505@nyc.rr.com>
Brian Palmer wrote:
> Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
>>"Brian Palmer" <·····@invalid.dom> wrote...
>>
>>>Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>>>
>>>>I feel we have an obligation to serve.
>>>
>>>You presented your talk and paper not out
>>>of a sense of selfless service but ...
What's with the hair-splitting of the bloke's use of the the verb "to
serve"? You have started a fight over a choice of words, not the idea of
JS-qua-CL. Typical useless NG digression into word wrangling.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
> What's with the hair-splitting of the bloke's use of the the verb "to
> serve"? You have started a fight over a choice of words, not the idea of
> JS-qua-CL. Typical useless NG digression into word wrangling.
True... my bad. It just raises my hackles when people say things like
"I feel we have an obligation to serve" -- not only do I consider this
feeling of obligation of serving to be insulting, but to top it off he
generalizes it to encompass others (ie: myself) with the use of "we".
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:26:45 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Why didn't LISP lead the way in the first place so that we never had to see
> XML? Or HTML?
Did you check Erik Naggum's accounts of his experience with SGML
standardization? Did you check Richard Gabriel's writings on "worse is
better"?
> That gives me great satisifcation from seeing even the most esoteric ideas
> applied to every day life to make life better for the greatest number of
> average people as possible. I'm very interested in the plight of the
> working stiff and the average joe on the street. If you can't make a
> difference to them, what good are your tools???
Lisp was created by some of the brightest minds in the computing world. It
was created to solve the largest, most complex and challenging problems. It
is optimized for experts, not for beginners. Bringing it to the average Joe
might be a disservice to him.
> My bottom line, non-negotiable starting point is that I only want to use the
> most ubiquitous tools that are available (and that is never LISP, at least
I hope you realize that other Lisp users might have other non-negotiable
starting points.
> not yet); and to be as recession proof as possible, and to be as mainstream
> as possible.
Lisp has been around for the past 44 years. There are probably few other
things as recession--and fad--proof as Lisp.
> LISP burned far too many people in varying degrees due to the vagaries of
> the LISP market. Can't you possibly imagine why some people might be a
> little gun shy of LISP?
Does "dot-com" tell anything to you?
> Actually it's not hard to find LISP jobs (I've turned down quite a few
> myself); but one thing you must give up to get a LISP job is geographical
> preference.
>
> You must follow the LISP jobs to wherever they are geographically. And they
[...]
> I couldn't be happy doing that. I want to live wherever I want to live.
[...]
> how happy I'd be in Redmond! I'm in favor of blooming where one is planted.
> I love the surfing here. The mountain biking. These things mean a great
> deal to me. Perhaps even more than Microsoft or LISP!
You might have a look at Mark Watson's programming and life style:
http://www.markwatson.com
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <7kfelrmi.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> Lisp is optimized for experts, not for beginners. Bringing it to
> the average Joe might be a disservice to him.
NOW you tell me....
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
>
>> Lisp is optimized for experts, not for beginners. Bringing it to
>> the average Joe might be a disservice to him.
>
>NOW you tell me....
But Joe, you are *far* from average.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <wunepqlr.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
····@vanderbilt.edu (sv0f) writes:
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> >
> >> Lisp is optimized for experts, not for beginners. Bringing it to
> >> the average Joe might be a disservice to him.
> >
> >NOW you tell me....
>
> But Joe, you are *far* from average.
Are you implying that I have some non-standard deviation?
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>····@vanderbilt.edu (sv0f) writes:
>
>> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
>> >
>> >> Lisp is optimized for experts, not for beginners. Bringing it to
>> >> the average Joe might be a disservice to him.
>> >
>> >NOW you tell me....
>>
>> But Joe, you are *far* from average.
>
>Are you implying that I have some non-standard deviation?
Lordy no. All your deviations are perfectly standard.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <fztypx7a.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
····@vanderbilt.edu (sv0f) writes:
> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> >····@vanderbilt.edu (sv0f) writes:
> >
> >> In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Lisp is optimized for experts, not for beginners. Bringing it to
> >> >> the average Joe might be a disservice to him.
> >> >
> >> >NOW you tell me....
> >>
> >> But Joe, you are *far* from average.
> >
> >Are you implying that I have some non-standard deviation?
>
> Lordy no. All your deviations are perfectly standard.
Oh good! What's the RFC?
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:00:01 GMT, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> serious). Now, some others may respond something like "But it's hard to
> get a Lisp job!", or even, "It's _impossible_ to get a Lisp job!". To
> those who say it's hard, I say "yes, good things in life are sometimes
> hard". And to those who would dare say it's impossible, I say "OK, have
Another good suggestion to some of them is to actually _try_ to get a Lisp
job before stating that it's hard or impossible.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:24:58 GMT, "Andre van Meulebrouck"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
> However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good. (For
> instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression based:
> this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope of
Such attempts were made, probably at the right time. Erik Naggum mentioned
here his efforts with SGML.
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
What do you mean by research and development? A number of projects are
working on usable libraries and tools.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On 01 Nov 2002 12:04:36 -0800, Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>
wrote:
> Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
[...]
> He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
> was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
> dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
Hmmm... is he working on an ArcMachine?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> On 01 Nov 2002 12:04:36 -0800, Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
> [...]
> > He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
> > was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
> > dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
>
> Hmmm... is he working on an ArcMachine?
That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a 9-volt
battery, and not wall voltage...
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <aqjp90$574$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Paolo Amoroso writes:
> >On 01 Nov 2002 12:04:36 -0800, Fred Gilham
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
> >>was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
> >>dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
> >
> >Hmmm... is he working on an ArcMachine?
> That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a 9-volt
> battery, and not wall voltage...
Even that sounds risky -- couple of gerbils and a rubber band sounds
more like what is needed?
;)w
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3245861963284429@naggum.no>
* Thomas F. Burdick
| That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a 9-volt
| battery, and not wall voltage...
If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that would be spectacular.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-0911021651360001@192.168.1.51>
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * Thomas F. Burdick
> | That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a 9-volt
> | battery, and not wall voltage...
>
> If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that would be spectacular.
It's actually not that hard. Just hook the battery up to an inductor, then
disconnect it. The bigger the inductor the better. You can indeed get
some fairly spectacular results this way.
(What happens is that the inductor is essentially a short-circuit to the
battery, which therefore pumps a lot of current through the inductor,
which creates a strong magnetic field. When you disconnect the battery
the field collapses, which induces a very high voltage in the inductor.)
E.
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum
> <····@naggum.no> wrote:
>
>> * Thomas F. Burdick
>> | That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's
>> | powered by a 9-volt battery, and not wall voltage...
>>
>> If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that
>> would be spectacular.
>
> It's actually not that hard. Just hook the battery up to
> an inductor, then
> disconnect it. The bigger the inductor the better. You
> can indeed get some fairly spectacular results this way.
>
> (What happens is that the inductor is essentially a
> short-circuit to the battery, which therefore pumps a lot
> of current through the inductor,
> which creates a strong magnetic field. When you
> disconnect the battery the field collapses, which induces
> a very high voltage in the inductor.)
Did you try this? Actually, most batteries have a high inner
resistance. I am not sure that it will work.
--
JB
In article <··············@ID-167393.news.dfncis.de>, ······@hotmail.com wrote:
> Erann Gat wrote:
>
> > In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum
> > <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> >
> >> * Thomas F. Burdick
> >> | That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's
> >> | powered by a 9-volt battery, and not wall voltage...
> >>
> >> If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that
> >> would be spectacular.
> >
> > It's actually not that hard. Just hook the battery up to
> > an inductor, then
> > disconnect it. The bigger the inductor the better. You
> > can indeed get some fairly spectacular results this way.
> >
> > (What happens is that the inductor is essentially a
> > short-circuit to the battery, which therefore pumps a lot
> > of current through the inductor,
> > which creates a strong magnetic field. When you
> > disconnect the battery the field collapses, which induces
> > a very high voltage in the inductor.)
>
> Did you try this?
Yes, about twenty years ago. Did you?
E.
Erann Gat wrote:
> Yes, about twenty years ago. Did you?
No. But soon after sending my reply it suddenly came to my
mind, that Geiger-Mueller counters may work with batteries
too. So my argument may have been silly.
--
JB
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4heen6haz.fsf@beta.franz.com>
JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
> Erann Gat wrote:
>
> > In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum
> > <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> >
> >> * Thomas F. Burdick
> >> | That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's
> >> | powered by a 9-volt battery, and not wall voltage...
> >>
> >> If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that
> >> would be spectacular.
> >
> > It's actually not that hard. Just hook the battery up to
> > an inductor, then
> > disconnect it. The bigger the inductor the better. You
> > can indeed get some fairly spectacular results this way.
> >
> > (What happens is that the inductor is essentially a
> > short-circuit to the battery, which therefore pumps a lot
> > of current through the inductor,
> > which creates a strong magnetic field. When you
> > disconnect the battery the field collapses, which induces
> > a very high voltage in the inductor.)
>
> Did you try this? Actually, most batteries have a high inner
> resistance. I am not sure that it will work.
I still have the Erector Set that I got as a young boy (they no
longer sell these, because they are not "safe" :-( It has steel
girders and wheels, gears, pulleys, and nuts and bolts, and you
can create bridges and Ferris Wheels and trucks and other such things.
The set I had also had an electric motor (for powering the moving
constructions), and one of the projects you could make with it was
a "shocker". It employed one of the gears and a crank, and there was
a special non-metalic strip that served as an insulator for the metallic
strip which then rested on the gear's teeth; this was all on a little
fixture (constructed, of course) that held two size "D" cells, and which
used the electric motor's windings as the inductor. When the crank was
turned, the current was interrupted at the contact and high voltage was
produced. It was very effective. If 10 people held hands, and the end
people each held one of the two "paddles", all would receive a shock.
Apparently the internal resistence of the two "D" cells was not
enough to thwart the project.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <m3smy736ta.fsf@europa.pienet>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> JB <······@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Did you try this? Actually, most batteries have a high inner
> > resistance. I am not sure that it will work.
>
> I still have the Erector Set that I got as a young boy (they no
> longer sell these, because they are not "safe" :-( It has steel
> girders and wheels, gears, pulleys, and nuts and bolts, and you
> can create bridges and Ferris Wheels and trucks and other such things.
>
> The set I had also had an electric motor (for powering the moving
> constructions), and one of the projects you could make with it was
> a "shocker". It employed one of the gears and a crank, and there was
> a special non-metalic strip that served as an insulator for the metallic
> strip which then rested on the gear's teeth; this was all on a little
> fixture (constructed, of course) that held two size "D" cells, and which
> used the electric motor's windings as the inductor. When the crank was
> turned, the current was interrupted at the contact and high voltage was
> produced. It was very effective. If 10 people held hands, and the end
> people each held one of the two "paddles", all would receive a shock.
>
> Apparently the internal resistence of the two "D" cells was not
> enough to thwart the project.
>
I don't think the internal resistance of the batteries is directly
relevant in this case. When the "contacts" close, I assume it
connects the motor to the battery, and current begins flowing. I
imagine you'd get something close to an amp. The fun begins when the
current is interrupted and the field around the motor windings
collapses. Depending on the circuit layout, the batteries might not
be present on the shocking side, but even if they are, the series
resistance of the batteries is not significant given the current
induced into the circuit from the collapsing field probably yields
something in the range of a few thousand volts. Since the resistance
thru the people is fairly high, the field's energy is dumped very
fast. This means a quick voltage risetime, which implies the voltage
doing the shocking is high-frequency. You might also be able to make
a lightbulb glow a little if you hold it near the 2 "shocker" leads
while running the device. Tesla coil people have lots of fun doing
this kind of stuff.
Since the energy in an inductor's field follows the square of the
current passing thru it, the series resistance of the batteries is
indirectly relevant because it tends to limit the motor coil current,
but I think here the current is limited mostly by the motor windings.
Your gizmo could probably be improved by locking the motor shaft and
putting a 6v lantern battery in place of the D cells.... :)
Gregm
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <4of8ybc71.fsf@beta.franz.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Thomas F. Burdick
> | That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a 9-volt
> | battery, and not wall voltage...
>
> If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that would be spectacular.
I know you're talking about a "transistor" battery, but when I was young,
my dad brought home a large 9 volt dry battery (a little bigger than a
lantern battery, but before those were common). I once melted a wrench
on that thing. I was scared to death. It was cool...
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <87d6pes18z.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> * Thomas F. Burdick
> | That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a
> | 9-volt battery, and not wall voltage...
>
> If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that would be
> spectacular.
Hmm, one could try using it to ring a an electric bell, then
putting the resulting rectangle-shaped current into a
transformer. You should get very short but very high voltage
peaks which /might/ be enough to produce a little arc. Damned,
if I only had a bell lying around here somewhere...
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
> > * Thomas F. Burdick
> > | That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a
> > | 9-volt battery, and not wall voltage...
> >
> > If you can get an arc out of a 9-volt battery, that would be
> > spectacular.
>
> Hmm, one could try using it to ring a an electric bell, then
> putting the resulting rectangle-shaped current into a
> transformer. You should get very short but very high voltage
> peaks which /might/ be enough to produce a little arc. Damned,
> if I only had a bell lying around here somewhere...
>
If I remember correctly you can build a "ladder" with diodes to build
up a nice voltage from a battery. They use them in the personal
defence zaper things(tazers I think) and cattle prods. It probably
come on a chip today.
marc
> Regards,
> --
> Nils G�sche
> Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
>
> PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
> I am a big fan of the sdf public access UNIX system, and had the
> pleasure of meeting Stephen Jones, who made this project happen. ...
> http://sdf.lonestar.org
> Stephen is looking into providing Open Genera to sdf users, since he has
> a license, and since he hosts with Alphas. ...
>
> On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
> Symbolics. From several people who have used Open Genera, it seems like
> the ideal Lisp environment. I don't know if it's for me, but if it goes
> up on sdf, I'm there. For those who don't know, Open Genera supports
> X, and so it pops up an X window on the Alpha into a emulated Lisp
> machine (at least, this is my understanding, as someone who's never used
> it). As far as you know, you're really on a Lisp machine...and don't
> worry that it's an emulated environment -- it's supposedly faster than
> ACL on the Alpha for several benchmarks.
I assume the way this would work is to run opengenera on the hosting
Alpha with display to one's X server over the Internet? One would
need to somehow configure one's Internet connection to allow incoming
requests from an sdf X client (the hosting Alpha)? Or maybe
start a vncserver on the hosting Alpha and run a vncviewer on one's
machine to view the vncserver over the Internet? I wonder what the
interactive performance of either of these options would be,
assuming that this is the intended usage mode...
Also, the environment would be Symbolics Common Lisp/Flavors/Zmacs,
not ANSI-CL/CLOS/emacs, right?
From: Matthew X. Economou
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <w4owunv9qmi.fsf@eco-fs1.irtnog.org>
>>>>> "Pratibha" == Pratibha <··········@yahoo.com> writes:
Pratibha> I assume the way this would work is to run opengenera on
Pratibha> the hosting Alpha with display to one's X server over
Pratibha> the Internet? One would need to somehow configure one's
Pratibha> Internet connection to allow incoming requests from an
Pratibha> sdf X client (the hosting Alpha)?
VNC probably isn't a good idea, as it is relantively insecure, not to
mention slow (even compared to X11). I've seen decent performance
using X11 connections forwarded over SSH tunnels, especially with a
fast cipher selected (e.g. Blowfish) and gzip-compression enabled. Of
course, this is over a broadband Internet connection, not dialup.
That said, I'd gladly slog through a slow-ass X11 connection to play
with Genera. I would pay money to support the server on the other
end, too.
--
Matthew X. Economou <········@irtnog.org> - Unsafe at any clock speed!
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian heritage! (http://www.subgenius.com)
Max told his friend that he'd just as soon not go hiking in the hills.
Said he, "I'm an anti-climb Max." [So is that punchline.]
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3fzuin5qn.fsf@cley.com>
* Matthew X Economou wrote:
> VNC probably isn't a good idea, as it is relantively insecure, not to
> mention slow (even compared to X11).
VNC tunnelled over ssh is as secure as ssh. I've used VNC over a 64k
line, and it's basically OK. For many modern X applications it's
actually considerably faster than X, because it only sends stuff which
actually involves a visual change on the screen, unlike X applications
which will happily send 3 billion futile requests to the server before
they do anything at all in the way of making a window appear (trace
netscape or xemacs sometime, and I bet really modern things are much
worse than this).
--tim
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC35AB2.2080104@nyc.rr.com>
Dave Bakhash wrote:
<a nice summary, including...>
> There's a lot to say, so first off, I'll start by saying that it was
> very well organized.
Hear! Hear! This was a serious "contrib" to CL.
> For me, it was amazing to finally meet people I've been talking to
> directly or indirectly for years.
Including John McCarthy in a cameo role!!
>
> Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. ... I shared his feelings that Common Lisp,
> though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
> longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
> not found in other languages have been adopted...
That bit bothered me. PN listed 8 cool features of CL and said of those
6 had been replicated by /some/ language. But!! No /one/ new language
has more than a few. Break it down by new language. All of a sudden we
discover that, just to get to the 80% point of "replicating" CL you need
to drag in four languages, each one contributing at most 30% of CL. (All
preceding numbers fabricated but close enough for government work.)
I would further whine that the check list did not include little things
like "fast" or "standardized". Granted, CL did not invent speed, but
none of the so-called Lisp competitors were fast, and that is one of the
huge objections to them. Not on Norvig's list.
btw, McCarthy nailed Norvig on another missing item from the list, viz,
code as data.
All in all a shabby presentation. Is Python fast? Does it have code as
data? Decent (not ref counting) GC? Macros? chya.
> Digitool's MCL is coming soon to OS X
woo-hoo!
> Even though we lived close by for many years, I never met Kent Pitman
> until this past week.
Kent was great, but I just don't get his anti-free thing. Jim Croce said
it: you don't spit into the wind. And his example of his http server
being made unmarketable by AllegroServe... well, there is also cl-http.
Not that that is "free", but it certainly seems like it might be a
commodity in that it is easy to produce. Potential investors demand of
our little startup: can't someone else replicate your work, eliminating
your competitive advantage? They are not saying the replicators will
give their work away, they just don't want us to be delivering a
commodity which anyone (esp. a groilla like Oracle) can churn out. They
want to hear that what we did is hard or patented (fwiw).
>
> There were many talks...so many that I couldn't do justice. But I'll
> mention some things that I was interested in.
[all good ones]
I got a big kick out of LinJ, the Lisp-to-Java source translator. I have
visions of porting Cells to Java via LinJ, which IIRC they said they
would share.
Interesting double-standard: Gabriel denounced OO unchallenged,
but Greenblatt was actually hissed (me included!) for dissing multiple
inheritance.
Back to Gabriel, I was fascinated to learn how hard it was to get a
degree in poetry, which boiled down to writing and reading a ton.
gabriel bemoaned how little we ask of comp sci grads, but it occurred to
me that since we do not yet know how to program (hey, biggies like
Gabriel, Greenblatt, and Graham are wrong about OO) we might be excused
for not yet knowing how to teach it.
Wake-up call: Imran Shah (I believe it was) of U of Colorado, Boulder
ended a nice talk by saying one of the only things wrong with CL was
that you cannot find CLers. We did a sanity check and discovered he had
advertised only locally. No posting on the Franz site, nothing here on
c.l.l., I imagine nothing on monster or dice or hotjobs... Shah was
thrilled to learn that he had just been looking in the wrong place, and
I think we need to think about how we can prevent this int he future.
which brings me to the ALU, which is getting ready to step things up,
and maybe one thing they (we!) can do is host a members-only job hunting
area on the soon-to-be reinvigorated web site, and make the hell sure
people know about it.
btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next year)
in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll make it
anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New Yawk, New
Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
more as i think of it, but all in all it was an astonishing event. ray,
the alu and franz deserve (and got) a lot of credit. the coordination
and content were simply over the top excellent. me, i was there just to
see the great roster of lispers, but in the end the best part for me was
rubbing elbows at last with other trench-diggers such as myself.
now i gotta get to work on browsing the half-dozen or more cool sites I
learned about this week.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
·····················@nyc.rr.com:
> btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next
> year) in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll
> make it anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New
> Yawk, New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case trying
to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and looking into
starting a users group? I did not see an chapters listed on the website.
marc
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <FuycnQawj6tLFV6gXTWcqA@giganews.com>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
+---------------
| Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
| > ...New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
|
| Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
+---------------
Speaking of hotels: this just in from the RISKS Digest:
<URL:http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.33.html#subj6.1>
...
If you stayed at a Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, or Crowne
Plaza hotel and checked out between 24 Oct and 26 Oct 2002,
you are likely to have been one of 26,000 people who were
charged 100 times what they owed, such as $6,500 to $21,000
per night. A credit-processing error resulted in the decimal
points being dropped. Most of the charges were later reversed,
although many people discovered that their credit limits had
been exhausted. Overcharged guests will get two free nights
at any of those hotels.
Any attendees who stayed in the conference hotel [a Holiday Inn],
left early [between 10/24 & 10/26], and didn't yet look at their
bill should check your hotel bill carefully... :-(
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <7jWdnSmHbM5KNV6gXTWcqA@giganews.com>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
+---------------
| Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
| > ...New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
|
| Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
+---------------
Speaking of hotels, this just in from the RISKS Digest:
<URL:http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.33.html#subj6.1>
...
If you stayed at a Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, or Crowne
Plaza hotel and checked out between 24 Oct and 26 Oct 2002,
you are likely to have been one of 26,000 people who were
charged 100 times what they owed, such as $6,500 to $21,000
per night. A credit-processing error resulted in the decimal
points being dropped. Most of the charges were later reversed,
although many people discovered that their credit limits had
been exhausted. Overcharged guests will get two free nights
at any of those hotels.
The conference hotel was a Holiday Inn, but given that ILC started on
the 27th, looks like we just missed getting bitten by this one... ;-}
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:
> > btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next
> > year) in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll
> > make it anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New
> > Yawk, New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
>
> Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
>
> Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case trying
> to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and looking into
> starting a users group? I did not see an chapters listed on the website.
I'm all for this. I'll call an open meeting, and will reserve a
conference room available for it right in midtown manhattan, 5 minutes
from Penn Station. This first one in NYC should just be to bring the
people together, such that we can get to know each other, and what
we're all doing, and possibly if we can help each other.
I know for sure that there are several Lispers in Long Island
(including Carl Shapiro). There's also Marco, Kenny, and of course
Raymond in the city proper. People can bring their laptops if they
want, and demo stuff. I'll be able to demo lots of stuff, will fire
up a transaction system, show POS interfacing stuff, IVR, and some of
my pet projects (e.g. XStrokes).
What I might do as well is to let some people know at NYU, so students
there who might know a little about CL, but don't have course
offerings can come too. We can start organizing some volutary
instructional sessions, etc. I tought a course in CL at BU,
voluntarily (the CS department donated a room to me for a couple of
hours once a week), and it was successful with over 20 students,
starting with about 30.
It's fascinating to ask students to bring their problem sets to class,
and show them how what they regularly spend 6 hours on in C or C++
usually takes no more than 15-30 minutes in CL. I used to do that,
but then stopped, because I would rather teach CL in its own right
than comparitively. I know that at least two of those people
continued to use CL afterwards, and fired up ACL regularly thereafter.
I'll try to gather a mailing list of interested people. In the
meantime, people can let me know what their schedules look like. Feel
free to send me email.
dave
I'd be very interested in an NYC lisp user group. I'm one of 2 people
I know in Westchester county using Lisp and would like to do whatever
I can to spread the word. My schedule is fairly open but evenings
Mon-Fri are best.
Thanks,
Eric
·····@alum.mit.edu (Dave Bakhash) wrote in message news:<···························@posting.google.com>...
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote in message news:
> > > btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next
> > > year) in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll
> > > make it anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New
> > > Yawk, New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
> >
> > Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
> >
> > Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case trying
> > to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and looking into
> > starting a users group? I did not see an chapters listed on the website.
>
> I'm all for this. I'll call an open meeting, and will reserve a
> conference room available for it right in midtown manhattan, 5 minutes
> from Penn Station. This first one in NYC should just be to bring the
> people together, such that we can get to know each other, and what
> we're all doing, and possibly if we can help each other.
>
> I know for sure that there are several Lispers in Long Island
> (including Carl Shapiro). There's also Marco, Kenny, and of course
> Raymond in the city proper. People can bring their laptops if they
> want, and demo stuff. I'll be able to demo lots of stuff, will fire
> up a transaction system, show POS interfacing stuff, IVR, and some of
> my pet projects (e.g. XStrokes).
>
> What I might do as well is to let some people know at NYU, so students
> there who might know a little about CL, but don't have course
> offerings can come too. We can start organizing some volutary
> instructional sessions, etc. I tought a course in CL at BU,
> voluntarily (the CS department donated a room to me for a couple of
> hours once a week), and it was successful with over 20 students,
> starting with about 30.
>
> It's fascinating to ask students to bring their problem sets to class,
> and show them how what they regularly spend 6 hours on in C or C++
> usually takes no more than 15-30 minutes in CL. I used to do that,
> but then stopped, because I would rather teach CL in its own right
> than comparitively. I know that at least two of those people
> continued to use CL afterwards, and fired up ACL regularly thereafter.
>
> I'll try to gather a mailing list of interested people. In the
> meantime, people can let me know what their schedules look like. Feel
> free to send me email.
>
> dave
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: lisp user group in NY
Date:
Message-ID: <uu1iwa64e.fsf@dtpq.com>
If this thing happens, I'd like to hear about it well in advance.
There are more out here than I expected as I ran across a Lisper in a
random bar here in the East Village! Count me in, and I'll pester the
other guy too.
- Heow
······@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote in message news:<·············@dtpq.com>...
> If this thing happens, I'd like to hear about it well in advance.
········@alphaGeeksInc.com (Heow) writes:
> There are more out here than I expected as I ran across a Lisper in a
> random bar here in the East Village! Count me in, and I'll pester the
> other guy too.
I'll add you to the list if you want...send me your actual email.
dave
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC3D993.4080104@nyc.rr.com>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
> ·····················@nyc.rr.com:
>
>
>>btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next
>>year) in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll
>>make it anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New
>>Yawk, New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
>
>
> Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
>
> Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case trying
> to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and looking into
> starting a users group?
Yep, I am thinking we call ourselves the International Lisp Users Group,
New York chapter. ILUG-NY (pronounced to the tune of "I Love NY", the
tourism promotion jingle.)
The format should be a big table with pitchers of beer in the middle.
McSorley's?
kenny
clinisys
From: Dave Bakhash
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <c297kfwxb6i.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> > Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case
> > trying to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and
> > looking into starting a users group?
>
> Yep, I am thinking we call ourselves the International Lisp Users
> Group, New York chapter. ILUG-NY (pronounced to the tune of "I Love
> NY", the tourism promotion jingle.)
I'm all for it. I love the name ILUG, and ILUG-NY is perfect, though a
quick check shows that we won't get the name ilug.org. I posted already
that I will reserve a conference room in midtown, 5 min. from Penn
Station, and all are invited.
> The format should be a big table with pitchers of beer in the
> middle. McSorley's?
I guess Java would be better (i.e. "IJUG" [of beer].)
I would like to round up as many of the NYC metro Lispers, Long
Islanders, etc. I only know of a few, though: Kenny, Carl, Ray, Marc,
Marco...I know I'm missing some for sure.
I'll write up a formal posting about it.
dave
From: Jim White
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC44570.5070403@pagesmiths.com>
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>Yep, I am thinking we call ourselves the International Lisp Users
>>Group, New York chapter. ILUG-NY (pronounced to the tune of "I Love
>>NY", the tourism promotion jingle.)
>
> I'm all for it. I love the name ILUG, and ILUG-NY is perfect, though a
> quick check shows that we won't get the name ilug.org. I posted already
> that I will reserve a conference room in midtown, 5 min. from Penn
> Station, and all are invited.
Well, thanks to Mr. Newman, we've got a whole song for ILUG-LA! ;-)
Jim
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <aq1i6b$5ff$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
Jim White wrote:
> Well, thanks to Mr. Newman, we've got a whole song for ILUG-LA! ;-)
I presume this is Randy rather than, say, Cardinal...
;)w
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
> Jim White wrote:
>
> > Well, thanks to Mr. Newman, we've got a whole song for ILUG-LA! ;-)
>
> I presume this is Randy rather than, say, Cardinal...
Or William Harold...
Cheers,
M.
--
I'm about to search Google for contract assassins to go to Iomega
and HP's programming groups and kill everyone there with some kind
of electrically charged rusty barbed thing.
-- http://bofhcam.org/journal/journal.html, 2002-01-08
From: Arthur Lemmens
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC3A13C.57B307DA@xs4all.nl>
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> now i gotta get to work on browsing the half-dozen or more cool sites I
> learned about this week.
Can you give us some URL's?
Thanks.
Arthur Lemmens
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC3F45C.4040007@nyc.rr.com>
Arthur Lemmens wrote:
>
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>now i gotta get to work on browsing the half-dozen or more cool sites I
>>learned about this week.
>
>
> Can you give us some URL's?
Good idea. (btw, if later the ALU ends up sharing the conference
proceedings, everyone should dive into that so they also find the stuff
which happened not to light my personal fire.)
caveat: this will be a little embarrassing for me since I will be saying
stuff like "OK, one cool thing I discovered was this place called
Google"... well, not /that/ bad, but close enough. I kinda live in this
extremely isolated techno-niche (and am only now thinking about checking
slashdot each day) so I have some wicked blind spots.
The last (speaker) shall be first: I did not know the painting program
Aaron was available as shareware:
http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/KCATaaron/DOWNLOADbasic
Harold Cohen, the author, gave a nice talk to end the conference.
Also, I can't say I had not seen this place before, but it was nice to
get reminded of:
http://www.hotdispatch.com/home.html
I am thinking about at long last kicking off a project to produce a
portable gui (X, Win32 and Mac) and HotDispatch might be a neat way to
get help with the effort if I do not want to go the open route.
More to come.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:49:08 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
>btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next year)
>in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll make it
>anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New Yawk, New
>Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
Unashamedly extending that invitation to meself, I have to make
preparations to start immediately in order to reach Nook Yawk in time.
But I am prepared to stay in a tent on your lawn/terrace if you
promise to extend a cat5 cable to it.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC3F99D.4060104@nyc.rr.com>
Abhijit Rao wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:49:08 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> y'all can stay at my place.
>
> But I am prepared to stay in a tent on your lawn/terrace if you
> promise to extend a cat5 cable to it.
"We have a pool and a pond. The pond would be good for you."
-- Chevy Chase to Bill Murray, Caddy Shack
:)
the tent might work. Central Park is nearby, and if you set up in
Strawberry Field you would /not/ be the only one there overnight.
seriously, I have here a copy of "Sleep Cheap in NY", but when I offered
it to a visitor he said he could find all that on-line. But one
recommended site picked at random:
http://www.centralparkhostel.com/
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:07:09 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
>"We have a pool and a pond. The pond would be good for you."
>-- Chevy Chase to Bill Murray, Caddy Shack
It will be a new an enriching experience, I am sure - this pond.
>
>:)
>
>the tent might work. Central Park is nearby, and if you set up in
>Strawberry Field you would /not/ be the only one there overnight.
What a nice (polite :very) way of going about it. :) you need not have
worried though - it will take me years before I reach Noo York (if I
get there at all). They tell me I will have to cross several oceans
to get there - not to mention unnamed dangers in the desert lands that
lie in between. But no fear! I have my trusty Victorinox by my side
- we both shall face the dangers together and unflinchingly!
>seriously, I have here a copy of "Sleep Cheap in NY", but when I offered
>it to a visitor he said he could find all that on-line. But one
>recommended site picked at random:
>
> http://www.centralparkhostel.com/
Your kindness has inspired me to extend an open invitation to all
lispers who may be passing through my city - it is the least I can do.
Onwards to Utopia!
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC42CD7.9050609@nyc.rr.com>
Abhijit Rao wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:07:09 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"We have a pool and a pond. The pond would be good for you."
>>-- Chevy Chase to Bill Murray, Caddy Shack
>
>
> It will be a new an enriching experience, I am sure - this pond.
No chlorine, for sure. You know, W and I visited Alcatraz on Tutorial
Day, and I have an idea.
Alcatraz was meant for the criminals other prisons did not want. Maybe I
should offer my roof just to those who have been keel-hauled on c.l.l.,
such as Quasi, Ilias, JB, and Mel. Maybe a lifetime achievement spot for
Xah, as well. We could run an anti-conference on my front stoop...
Hmmmm....
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Alcatraz was meant for the criminals other prisons did not
> want. Maybe I should offer my roof just to those who have
> been keel-hauled on c.l.l., such as Quasi, Ilias, JB, and
> Mel. Maybe a lifetime achievement spot for Xah, as well.
> We could run an anti-conference on my front stoop...
I have been treated well here. I do not know what you mean.
--
JB
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC43BEF.7070103@nyc.rr.com>
JB wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>>Alcatraz was meant for the criminals other prisons did not
>>want. Maybe I should offer my roof just to those who have
>>been keel-hauled on c.l.l., such as Quasi, Ilias, JB, and
>>Mel. Maybe a lifetime achievement spot for Xah, as well.
>>We could run an anti-conference on my front stoop...
>
>
> I have been treated well here. I do not know what you mean.
OK, I'll see if I can get IRT instead.
Actually, everyone in the list has been well-treated here. The
"keel-haul" analogy was selected after several milliseconds of careful
thought.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> OK, I'll see if I can get IRT instead.
>
> Actually, everyone in the list has been well-treated here.
> The "keel-haul" analogy was selected after several
> milliseconds of careful thought.
Hey Kenny!
There are those who are good and those who are evil. Those
who disclose their heretic views are always evil.
It must be good for you to belong to those who are good!
--
JB
"Die t�richt genug ihr volles Herz nicht wahrten,
Dem P�bel ihr Gef�hl, ihr Schauen offenbarten,
Hat man von je gekreuzigt und verbrannt."
(Goethe: Faust I)
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 19:45:43 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
>Alcatraz was meant for the criminals other prisons did not want. Maybe I
>should offer my roof just to those who have been keel-hauled on c.l.l.,
>such as Quasi, Ilias, JB, and Mel.
I was not aware I was part of any such prestigious group. I sincerely
thank you for opening my eyes to membership. It is such pleasure to
see that one's light hearted attempts at humours also can actually
land him into the esoteric league. I must be lucky or what?
> Maybe a lifetime achievement spot for
>Xah, as well. We could run an anti-conference on my front stoop...
anti-conference? Unfortunately having fought hard to get to do Lisp I
would have to politely decline. But I /do/ get the point.
I would also request one more thing from you (what? another one?? die
of shame you mosquito!). I would be honored by my entry into your
killfile. I would not like you to have to associate with criminals.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC4BF51.8030004@nyc.rr.com>
Abhijit Rao wrote:
> I would also request one more thing from you (what? another one?? die
> of shame you mosquito!). I would be honored by my entry into your
> killfile. I would not like you to have to associate with criminals.
That does it, the anti-conference is off. What a prickly, humorless lot!
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 06:12:58 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
>That does it, the anti-conference is off. What a prickly, humorless lot!
Ha. What a humour. The same when people find it so funny to corner a
junior in the bathroom and say "hey weener you are sooo short - you
cant even kiss and do it at the same time." The same as when people
find it so humorous to go bomb every tom dick & harry. "Fakin evil
people - lets bomb them & see them roast. hahaha."
Unfortunately this sub-thread has skewed away badly. *sigh*
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
From: Will Deakin
Subject: OT Just A Minute [ was Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF]
Date:
Message-ID: <aq38oq$1em$1@helle.btinternet.com>
Abhijit Rao wrote:
> Ha. What a humour. The same when people find it so funny to corner a
> junior in the bathroom and say "hey weener you are sooo short - you
> cant even kiss and do it at the same time." The same as when people
> find it so humorous to go bomb every tom dick & harry. "Fakin evil
> people - lets bomb them & see them roast. hahaha."
Please could you translate.
> Unfortunately this sub-thread has skewed away badly.
There is a (relatively) popular humourous radio show in this country
called `just a minute' in which a contestant must talk on a subject for
60 seconds without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Other contestant
can challenge on the basis of this. I think the above would probably
fall under the category of `deviation from the english language...'
;)w
From: Abhijit Rao
Subject: Re: OT Just A Minute [ was Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF]
Date:
Message-ID: <l6basu03bbv1caolv29ubvoc002mqihtcv@4ax.com>
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:36:26 +0000 (UTC), Will Deakin
<···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Abhijit Rao wrote:
>
>> Ha. What a humour. The same when people find it so funny to corner a
>> junior in the bathroom and say "hey weener you are sooo short - you
>> cant even kiss and do it at the same time." The same as when people
>> find it so humorous to go bomb every tom dick & harry. "Fakin evil
>> people - lets bomb them & see them roast. hahaha."
>
>Please could you translate.
Could you please tell me what part you want translated and into which
language? '-) The above is correct English I suppose (except for the
quoted bits which are exempt from grammar). :-)
>> Unfortunately this sub-thread has skewed away badly.
>
>There is a (relatively) popular humourous radio show in this country
>called `just a minute' in which a contestant must talk on a subject for
>60 seconds without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Other contestant
>can challenge on the basis of this. I think the above would probably
>fall under the category of `deviation from the english language...'
I fear I have to admit that I don't see the 'deviation...' bit here.
You may have to be more elaborate if I have to understand. ;) BTW
which country?
>;)w
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:49:08 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Dave Bakhash wrote:
[...]
> > Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. ... I shared his feelings
> > that Common Lisp,
> > though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
> > longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
> > not found in other languages have been adopted...
>
> That bit bothered me. PN listed 8 cool features of CL and said of those
> 6 had been replicated by /some/ language. But!! No /one/ new language
> has more than a few. Break it down by new language. All of a sudden we
> discover that, just to get to the 80% point of "replicating" CL you need
> to drag in four languages, each one contributing at most 30% of CL. (All
> preceding numbers fabricated but close enough for government work.)
Do you mean that we finally have a mathematical proof of Greenspun's Tenth
Rule?
> Wake-up call: Imran Shah (I believe it was) of U of Colorado, Boulder
> ended a nice talk by saying one of the only things wrong with CL was
> that you cannot find CLers. We did a sanity check and discovered he had
> advertised only locally. No posting on the Franz site, nothing here on
> c.l.l., I imagine nothing on monster or dice or hotjobs... Shah was
Let's not forget the ai+lisp-jobs mailing list.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Mark Dalgarno
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <uof91wucp.fsf@scientia.com>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:49:08 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Wake-up call: Imran Shah (I believe it was) of U of Colorado, Boulder
> > ended a nice talk by saying one of the only things wrong with CL was
> > that you cannot find CLers. We did a sanity check and discovered he had
> > advertised only locally. No posting on the Franz site, nothing here on
> > c.l.l., I imagine nothing on monster or dice or hotjobs... Shah was
>
> Let's not forget the ai+lisp-jobs mailing list.
Just one thought on this. Five out of the six Lisp programmers I've
recruited in the last three years have come via postings I made on
c.l.l.
However, in a larger organisation recruitment may be handled by a
personnel department which does things in a rigid manner and may not
have the flexibility to advertise on usenet or the wider internet (or
to conduct the follow-up telephone interviews).
Moral - if you're in this position make sure c.l.l is one of the
recruitment channels your personnel department uses - it may also save
your organisation money in agency and advertising fees.
Mark
"Paolo Amoroso" <·······@mclink.it> wrote
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:49:08 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Bakhash wrote:
> [...]
> > > Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. ... I shared his
feelings
> > > that Common Lisp,
> > > though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
> > > longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
> > > not found in other languages have been adopted...
> >
> > That bit bothered me. PN listed 8 cool features of CL and said of those
> > 6 had been replicated by /some/ language. But!! No /one/ new language
> > has more than a few. Break it down by new language. All of a sudden we
> > discover that, just to get to the 80% point of "replicating" CL you need
> > to drag in four languages, each one contributing at most 30% of CL. (All
> > preceding numbers fabricated but close enough for government work.)
>
> Do you mean that we finally have a mathematical proof of Greenspun's Tenth
> Rule?
Almost. It's just a money problem. Basically what he said is that it costs
less to spend a lot of development time for really optimizing some parts of
the code when you have more than 10000 servers. A 20% decrease in
performance would result in 2000 servers, with their associated costs, being
added.
That bothered me as well because I don't have 10000 servers but only 3 and I
don't have the 200 talented C/C++ programmers of Google to write the macros
and compiler I get for free with a Common Lisp. So at the break I asked him
if he though his arguments were applicable to small companies or what
language he would use in that case. "No, I would use Lisp" he replied.
Marc
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> wrote in message
·······················································@lp.airnews.net...
> Almost. It's just a money problem. Basically what he said is that it costs
> less to spend a lot of development time for really optimizing some parts of
> the code when you have more than 10000 servers. A 20% decrease in
> performance would result in 2000 servers, with their associated costs, being
> added.
That argument is not quite valid, as machine performance increases, in 18 months
those 10,000 servers may be down to 5,000. Now you have diminishing returns
on that 20%, until they almost diminish to nothing. Maintenence and administrative costs
are probably the largest cost after development, was anything said about that?
That argument has more sway for things like cell phones where many 100,000's of
phones are made and saving $1 per phone is a big deal.
> That bothered me as well because I don't have 10000 servers but only 3 and I
> don't have the 200 talented C/C++ programmers of Google to write the macros
> and compiler I get for free with a Common Lisp. So at the break I asked him
> if he though his arguments were applicable to small companies or what
> language he would use in that case. "No, I would use Lisp" he replied.
--
Wade
(format t "Email: ~A"
(map 'string
'code-char
'(119 104 117 109 101 110 105 117 64
116 101 108 117 115 46 110 101 116)))
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <87adkkj4wi.fsf@noetbook.telent.net>
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> writes:
> That argument is not quite valid, as machine performance increases,
> in 18 months those 10,000 servers may be down to 5,000. Now you
> have diminishing returns
But what we're talking about here is an internet search engine. The
size of the searchable internet grows at a rate (a) slower, (b)
matching, or (c) exceeding the rate that the performance of your
server farm grows?
My guess is that the searchable internet probably grows faster than
the number of web pages in itself does, as tools are developed to pick
out information from previously opaque resources (Google does Word
documents and PDF files already, maybe in future we'll see it attack
Excel spreadsheets, Flash and Powerpoint presentations etc etc).
OK, there's an assumption implicit in there that a Powerpoint
presentation ever actually _does_ contain any information, but you
catch my drift. http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ is relevant to the
point I'm not trying to make, here.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> (Google does Word documents and PDF files already, maybe in future
> we'll see it attack Excel spreadsheets, Flash and Powerpoint
> presentations etc etc).
Google actually indexes Excel and Powerpoint files already.
http://www.google.com/help/faq_filetypes.html
Jeremy.
Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<···············@no-knife.mit.edu>...
> On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
> Symbolics.
Pray tell, what did David Schmidt say about the status of Symbolics?
From: Dave Bakhash
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <c294rayfd6r.fsf@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
··········@hotmail.com (Vlad S.) writes:
> Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<···············@no-knife.mit.edu>...
>
> > On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
> > Symbolics.
>
> Pray tell, what did David Schmidt say about the status of Symbolics?
I didn't hear anything specific about Symbolics, except that what's left
are three people, and that they maintain Open Genera. I have never used
their Lisp, so I know very little about it.
Still, from the way people who actually use Open Genera talk about it,
it seems like the ideal Lisp platform to develop under.
dave
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <m3n0ophn14.fsf@europa.pienet>
··········@hotmail.com (Vlad S.) writes:
> Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<···············@no-knife.mit.edu>...
>
> > On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
> > Symbolics.
>
> Pray tell, what did David Schmidt say about the status of Symbolics?
They're a pretty small operation now, but still have some long-term
customers. Due to contract constraints, their price for Genera is
fixed- pretty much right out of the hobbyist range unfortunately.
They have an emulator that runs on Alpha hardware if you don't have
native hardware handy. They have a good bit of their own hardware on
hand, parts & some facilities to repair them. They try to keep track
of their existing hardware, attempting to keep it out of the
landfills. Software-wise, they bring in previous Symbolics people
from time to time to handle updates & bug fixes, etc- however they are
not in a position for large scale development. Unless you're willing
to pay for it I imagine...
They've been toying with ideas related to either augmenting a
commodity 64 bit processor (PowerPC, Itanic...) to be somewhat close
to "Lisp-ready", or to pick up funding to roll a custom processor.
Personally, I doubt there's much of a market for a custom processor
these days- but what do I know. I think it might be easier to sell a
PCI based coprocessor board with some suitably tweaked Sparc/PowerPC,
all loaded up w/ ram and custom fpga's to make the thing Lispy. Some
of the bio-informatics presentations sure sounded as if something like
that might be handy.
Mr. Schmidt gave a fascinating presentation, I'm glad I made it. He
even had a drawing for one of their boards and a copy of Genera.
Unfortunately I had neither business cards or a handy piece of paper
on which to scratch my name...
Gregm
From: Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <2hfzuha7dx.fsf@vserver.cs.uit.no>
Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
> [..] They've been toying with ideas related to either augmenting a
> commodity 64 bit processor (PowerPC, Itanic...) to be somewhat close
> to "Lisp-ready", or to pick up funding to roll a custom processor.
> Personally, I doubt there's much of a market for a custom processor
> these days- but what do I know. I think it might be easier to sell
> a PCI based coprocessor board with some suitably tweaked
> Sparc/PowerPC, all loaded up w/ ram and custom fpga's to make the
> thing Lispy. Some of the bio-informatics presentations sure sounded
> as if something like that might be handy.
Is there really still a perceived need for such "lispy" hardware? The
current mass-produced CPUs are amazingly fast, and if there is a 25%
(or even more) overhead of mapping some run-time environment to these
CPUs, that's still 75% of something that's constantly getting faster,
at no effort on "our" part. Other than slightly reduced code-size and
somewhat simpler compilers, what would be the expected gain of such
hardware?
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <m3u1ixtr37.fsf@europa.pienet>
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld <······@cs.uit.no> writes:
> Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
>
> > [..] They've been toying with ideas related to either augmenting a
> > commodity 64 bit processor (PowerPC, Itanic...) to be somewhat close
> > to "Lisp-ready", or to pick up funding to roll a custom processor.
> > Personally, I doubt there's much of a market for a custom processor
> > these days- but what do I know. I think it might be easier to sell
> > a PCI based coprocessor board with some suitably tweaked
> > Sparc/PowerPC, all loaded up w/ ram and custom fpga's to make the
> > thing Lispy. Some of the bio-informatics presentations sure sounded
> > as if something like that might be handy.
>
> Is there really still a perceived need for such "lispy" hardware? The
> current mass-produced CPUs are amazingly fast, and if there is a 25%
> (or even more) overhead of mapping some run-time environment to these
> CPUs, that's still 75% of something that's constantly getting faster,
> at no effort on "our" part. Other than slightly reduced code-size and
> somewhat simpler compilers, what would be the expected gain of such
> hardware?
I think the theory is to the extent Lispy hardware offers some useful
performance increment, someone will be willing to buy it. Personally,
I doubt that any significant number of people would be particularly
interested in a custom processor, but there might be some interested
in a really fast Lisp coprocessor. I think code size and simpler
compilers don't really enter into it these days. On the other hand,
one of the bio-informatics guys said he'd be glad to buy some kind of
board that would give a reasonable performance boost. I think the key
is the machine instruction level implementation of tag bits and/or
other low level Lisp features that are typically emulated via higher
level abstractions on general purpose hardware. Even if this made a
huge speed improvement, the board would have to be cheap to build
because not too many people would be interested. If Java could be run
better/faster on the board too, it might reach a larger market. The
idea of running full safety code as fast or faster than no safety code
on conventional processors is an appealing argument.
Gregm
From: Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <2hbs55a1zk.fsf@vserver.cs.uit.no>
Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
> The idea of running full safety code as fast or faster than no
> safety code on conventional processors is an appealing argument.
It's certainly appealing, but not very realistic.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Date:
Message-ID: <3DC6990A.6000607@nyc.rr.com>
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld wrote:
> Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>The idea of running full safety code as fast or faster than no
>>safety code on conventional processors is an appealing argument.
>
>
> It's certainly appealing, but not very realistic.
>
I think in the long run (we're talking macro, not micro) what we are
learning is that tag bits are handy, so someday we'll have them, if only
to support Java. That's OK, as long as Lisp compilers can leverage them.
But if I am right, we'll see that only when Intel or Motorola decides
to put them in. I wonder if Motorola is looking for a way to grow share? :)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
>>>>> "Kenny" == Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
Kenny> Frode Vatvedt Fjeld wrote:
>> Greg Menke <··········@toadmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The idea of running full safety code as fast or faster than no
>>> safety code on conventional processors is an appealing argument.
>> It's certainly appealing, but not very realistic.
>>
Kenny> I think in the long run (we're talking macro, not micro) what we are
Kenny> learning is that tag bits are handy, so someday we'll have them, if
Kenny> only to support Java. That's OK, as long as Lisp compilers can
Kenny> leverage them. But if I am right, we'll see that only when Intel or
Kenny> Motorola decides to put them in. I wonder if Motorola is looking for a
Kenny> way to grow share? :)
FWIW, Sparcs have instructions to support tag bits. Two of those
instructions have been deprecated in the Sparc V9. And they didn't
extend the instruction for 64-bit support.
Ray