I'm considering using lush as an educational language
for 15-18 year old pupils, but it seems that is used
very little (it is rarely mentioned in this news group).
My impression is that lush's gui toolkit allows to get
working programs much fasterv that CLIM does. Is this
right?
A drawback is that the lisp is neither scheme nor common
lisp. Is it considerd to be a well designed language?
A nice feature of lush is ability to handle bitmaps.
Are there similar libraries for Common lisp or DrScheme?
Reinhard Oldenburg
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:05:44 +0100, Reinhard Oldenburg <··········@gmx.de>
wrote:
> My impression is that lush's gui toolkit allows to get
> working programs much fasterv that CLIM does. Is this
> right?
I haven't used LispWork's CAPI myself, but its users often praise its
simplicity here.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:05:44 +0100, Reinhard Oldenburg
> <··········@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> My impression is that lush's gui toolkit allows to get
>> working programs much fasterv that CLIM does. Is this
>> right?
>
> I haven't used LispWork's CAPI myself, but its users often praise its
> simplicity here.
Reinhard does not mention what level he wants to use it at.
DrScheme provides two ways of making GUIs. The easiest way
is to use the Teachpack called gui, which makes it easy for
students to make their first GUIs. The important thing is that
the learn the ideas and for that job it works quite nice. To make
this simplicity, the possibilitis are very restricted though.
For more info on the teachpack see:
http://www.htdp.org/2002-09-22/Book/curriculum-Z-H-28.html#%_sec_22.3
The other options is to use the normal GUI-functions that DrScheme
provides. Here you can control everything, at the usual price that
there are more things to consider.
For the general GUI frameworks see
http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/203/html/framework/index.htm
--
Jens Axel S�gaard
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:05:44 +0100, Reinhard Oldenburg <··········@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>My impression is that lush's gui toolkit allows to get
>>working programs much fasterv that CLIM does. Is this
>>right?
>>
>
> I haven't used LispWork's CAPI myself, but its users often praise its
> simplicity here.
Well, CAPI isn't too difficult, but not as easy as lush's system. Simply
count the numer of lines of a a simple window with a few buttons.
But simplicity of the gui isn't the only point, lush's seems to have
other strenghts as weell and I'm asking for weaknesses that explain
why it is not in broader use.
In article <················@gmx.de>,
Reinhard Oldenburg <··········@gmx.de> wrote:
> But simplicity of the gui isn't the only point, lush's seems to have
> other strenghts as weell and I'm asking for weaknesses that explain
> why it is not in broader use.
One of the reasons probably is that lush doesn't seem to support lexical
scoping.
Pascal
Reinhard Oldenburg <··········@gmx.de> writes:
> Well, CAPI isn't too difficult, but not as easy as lush's system. Simply
> count the numer of lines of a a simple window with a few buttons.
Drawing a simple window with a few buttons is perhaps not the case we
should be optimizing. How well does lush's simplicity scale? CAPI
applications tend to remain manageable even for applications with more
complex UI requirements like Lispworks itself.
--
People don't bore me. I like people. - Really? All of them? - All of them. -
Even the creepy ones? - Nobody's creepy from the inside, Hazel. Some of them
are sad, and some of them hurt, and some of them think they're the only real
thing in the whole world. But they're not creepy. -- Hazel and Death
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 20:56:27 +0100, Reinhard Oldenburg <··········@gmx.de>
wrote:
> But simplicity of the gui isn't the only point, lush's seems to have
> other strenghts as weell and I'm asking for weaknesses that explain
> why it is not in broader use.
Which strengths?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
I am only one or two weeks far from doing some school project with lush,
so I just can't tell you how exactly :
-it's well supported (it's in Debian, that is good enough for me)
-it's really easy to do GUI work (although simple GUI seems simple to do)
-it's a "well designed language" (is CL such a thing anyway ?) -> since
it's part of the Lisp family of languages, it can't be that bad...
BUT, one key idea behind lush (that buys me) is
-producing C code from lush code,
-the ability to write inline C code into your pseudo-lisp lush source...
So it may be easy to reuse any of the "legacy", I mean "vast body of code
already written in C or even C++, or even (god forgives me) Java - along the
godawfull JNI interface".
IOW, going back-and-forth between some lisp-ish
language and the legacy (and mandatory, for my project), library and app
code is a boon.
But don't take this as an advice. Maybe this will trigger some reactions
of people telling you how easy and straightforward it is to do the same in
CL or Scheme or whatever.
I'm just too new to the Wonderfull Lisp World to Really Know.
Aur�lien.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:05:44 +0100, Reinhard Oldenburg wrote:
> I'm considering using lush as an educational language
> for 15-18 year old pupils, but it seems that is used
> very little (it is rarely mentioned in this news group).
>
> My impression is that lush's gui toolkit allows to get
> working programs much fasterv that CLIM does. Is this
> right?
>
> A drawback is that the lisp is neither scheme nor common
> lisp. Is it considerd to be a well designed language?
>
> A nice feature of lush is ability to handle bitmaps.
> Are there similar libraries for Common lisp or DrScheme?
>
>
> Reinhard Oldenburg
* "Aur�lien Camp�as" <···········@wanadoo.fr>:
> -it's a "well designed language" (is CL such a thing anyway ?)
I think it is. Perhaps you're confusing "well-designed" with
"aesthetically pleasing". (I'm not saying Lisp is ugly, but it's my
impression that it was designed to be practical, not necessarily
meeting some kind of aesthetical standard, like having no side
effects, being small/simple, or whatever.)
> BUT, one key idea behind lush (that buys me) is
> -producing C code from lush code,
> -the ability to write inline C code into your pseudo-lisp lush source...
ECL supports this too, FWIW. But I don't know much more about it, and
how good its ANSI-compliance is.
--
Johannes Gr�dem <OpenPGP: 5055654C>
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:03:13 +0100, Johannes Gr�dem wrote:
> * "Aur�lien Camp�as" <···········@wanadoo.fr>:
>
>> -it's a "well designed language" (is CL such a thing anyway ?)
>
> I think it is. Perhaps you're confusing "well-designed" with
> "aesthetically pleasing".
No. It was pure speculation on my side. Moreover I find CL code
"aesthetically pleasing" -- much more than any Java or C++ crap.
And, yes, it seems very practical. In fact it's the more practical and
aesthetic language I've ever seen since the days I programmed (toy
programs) with my HP 28S... (12 years ago)
Oh, and I recently stumbled upon the Joy programming language. That was an
aesthetic experience ! But it's a little bit experimental, thus not so
directly useable.
>
>> BUT, one key idea behind lush (that buys me) is
>> -producing C code from lush code,
>> -the ability to write inline C code into your pseudo-lisp lush source...
>
> ECL supports this too, FWIW. But I don't know much more about it, and
> how good its ANSI-compliance is.
Thanks for that. I'll have a look. Oh, and ANSI-compliance is not so
important for some bits of a student's project. I'll have the cdr of my
life to abide ANSI compliance :-)
Aur�lien.