········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
SOAP is a stupidity. You can easily send S-expressions over a socket.
This is what I'm doing in my current project, which is written in C++
without a shred of Lisp. This is all I have to do to send a structured
message to a suitable server:
CMessageClient c(port_number);
c.Connect();
// send (foo-request 42 ("bar" NIL)) over network.
// reply variable catches reply.
CObjectRef reply = c.SendAndWait(List(Intern(L"foo-request"),
Number(42),
List(String(L"bar"),
NULL));
A library of nice Lisp-like functions is there to decode the complex
structures; way better than every XML API in existence.
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> ········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> > Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
>
> SOAP is a stupidity. You can easily send S-expressions over a socket.
But .NET uses SOAP! How can it be bad?
I wonder how high that .NET is above the ground.
--
(describe 'describe)
David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> writes:
> ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
>
>> > Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
>>
>> SOAP is a stupidity. You can easily send S-expressions over a socket.
>
> But .NET uses SOAP! How can it be bad?
It can be. And 'Net' in Russian is 'No' :)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
| recursion, n:
| See recursion
On 22 May 2003 11:46:29 -0700, ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
wrote:
>········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
>> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
>
>SOAP is a stupidity.
This is why people don't use Lisp. Not because of the language, but
because of the attitude...
A.L.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:01:02PM -0400, Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
> On 22 May 2003 11:46:29 -0700, ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
> wrote:
> >········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote in message
> >news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> >> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
> >
> >SOAP is a stupidity.
>
> This is why people don't use Lisp. Not because of the language, but
> because of the attitude...
Or maybe because of their stupidity and inability to read?
Did you bother to read the rest of his post? Or do you just like
reading single sentences out of context?
Let's talk about your attitude:
If you are so concerned over the lack of SOAP libraries for CL, why
don't you implement them and distribute them?
--
; 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."
Andrzej Lewandowski <·············@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
> On 22 May 2003 11:46:29 -0700, ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
> wrote:
>
> >········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> >> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
> >
> >SOAP is a stupidity.
>
> This is why people don't use Lisp. Not because of the language, but
> because of the attitude...
What are you trying to say here? I will try to guess generously:
``People don't use Lisp'' -- people obviously use Lisp, so this is
wrong.
``Few people use Lisp because of the displays of arrogance of the few
who do.'' -- this is just an idiotic psychological hypothesis
concocted by people who project their own feelings onto the world,
believing it to be driven by the same mechanisms. In reality, every
programming language has arrogant users; if popularity were inversely
proportional to the arrogance of the existing base, where would C and
C++ be?
``There exist data formats and protocols that are pushed onto the
world by large players who have anything but interoperability in mind.
But pointing out that these designs are overly complex, inconvenient,
and even flawed is a display of bad attitude.'' -- criticizing such
things in the harshest possible terms is practically a duty of every
professional.
I thought SOAP was a pile of crap three years ago. I did not use Lisp
three years ago, so I was in no way contributing to that imagined
mechanism which you think is keeping Lisp down. Three years ago I
worked on a project that was being divided into distributed processes
and needed a flexible inter-process communication mechanism. There was
talk of SOAP, but I laughed it off. I ended up designing a simple
lexical syntax for representing property lists: items identified by
string names, having integer, string or binary values indicated by
lexical structure. The specification could have been be written on
half of an 8.5 by 11 inch paper, and handle everything that SOAP is
used for. The C++ formatter and parser was written in a day.
"Kaz Kylheku" <···@ashi.footprints.net> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> SOAP is a stupidity. You can easily send S-expressions over a socket.
> This is what I'm doing in my current project, which is written in C++
> without a shred of Lisp. This is all I have to do to send a structured
> message to a suitable server:
Right, but the key here is the simple fact that many suitable servers,
implemented in a VAST array of languages and platforms ARE using SOAP for
communication.
The whole POINT of SOAP is interoperability. If you're using you're own
protocol for internal purposes, then it's no doubt overkill. But, rightly or
wrongly, a lot of systems are using SOAP for x-platform messaging.
A simple example, our F5 BigIP load balancers have SOAP listeners to help
control the load balancers.
With the modern scripting languages supporting lightweight access to the
protocol, it makes scripting the F5's remotely much simpler.
Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
According to Will Hartung <·····@msoft.com>:
> Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
How about this one:
http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/soap.html
Commercial use allowed.
Looks to me to just need some FFI magic. Then, voila, SOAP for Lisp, client
and server.
--
Ng Pheng Siong <····@netmemetic.com>
http://firewall.rulemaker.net -+- Manage Your Firewall Rulebase Changes
http://www.post1.com/home/ngps -+- Open Source Python Crypto & SSL
"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> writes:
> Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
I don't think that's quite right, but on the other hand: Given the
size of the lisp community and the lisp vendors, I think it's
reasonable to keep some necessary distance to the cruft-producing
crowd, otherwise you'll just never keep up with all their weird
"standards".
--
(espen)
On 27 May 2003 08:47:06 +0200, Espen Vestre
<·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote:
>"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> writes:
>
>> Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
>
>I don't think that's quite right, but on the other hand: Given the
>size of the lisp community and the lisp vendors, I think it's
>reasonable to keep some necessary distance to the cruft-producing
>crowd, otherwise you'll just never keep up with all their weird
>"standards".
Lisp Elite?
A.L.
Will Hartung wrote:
> Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
Simple marketing: the arrogance and exclusivity of Lispniks is Lisp's
biggest draw. That is how outsiders know Lisp is special. High prices,
velvet ropes barring entry -- who wants to join a club that anyone can join?
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Will Hartung wrote:
>> Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
>
> Simple marketing: the arrogance and exclusivity of Lispniks is Lisp's
> biggest draw. That is how outsiders know Lisp is special. High prices,
> velvet ropes barring entry -- who wants to join a club that anyone can join?
*snicker* I wouldn't be bothering to learn Lisp right now if it weren't
for open-source implementations like CLISP and SBCL. I don't care a
whit for the proprietary-software ideology; I see a neat language worth
my effort to wrap my brain around.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Will Hartung wrote:
>>
>>>Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
>>
>>Simple marketing: the arrogance and exclusivity of Lispniks is Lisp's
>>biggest draw. That is how outsiders know Lisp is special. High prices,
>>velvet ropes barring entry -- who wants to join a club that anyone can join?
>
>
> *snicker* I wouldn't be bothering to learn Lisp right now if it weren't
> for open-source implementations like CLISP and SBCL. I don't care a
> whit for the proprietary-software ideology; I see a neat language worth
> my effort to wrap my brain around.
Just curious: what made you try Lisp seriously in the first place? And
not quite a corollary: why weren't you turned off by all the usual
reasons for not using Lisp? Are you thinking about using Lisp for
serious work, or is this purely out of curiosity? Other?
btw, even without the open source CLs you could explore on crippled
freebies and then jump to Lispworks for less than a $1000, IIRC. Would
that work for you?
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<················@nyc.rr.com>...
> btw, even without the open source CLs you could explore on crippled
> freebies and then jump to Lispworks for less than a $1000, IIRC. Would
> that work for you?
The Lispworks freebie version is not as crippled as
it sounds. I remember years in the past when my PC
would freeze or crash if I opened too many windows
running any kind of software. Right now with the
free version of LWW I can enter something at the
REPL which will cause 1000 small Microsoft windows
to be opened at random places on my screen, overlaying
each other. Then I can enter something else to
remove them, if I can find the REPL.
That's using the Microsoft Windows API's via the LWW
FLI (FFI). A lot of programmers are reluctant to get
involved with Lisp because they think they can't do
that kind of stuff till they pay for a professional
version. They can and should do serious development
with the free version first, then use demos of that
as leverage to get a budget for the professional or
enterprise version and further development.
Eric Smith wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<················@nyc.rr.com>...
>
>
>>btw, even without the open source CLs you could explore on crippled
>>freebies and then jump to Lispworks for less than a $1000, IIRC. Would
>>that work for you?
>
>
> The Lispworks freebie version is not as crippled as
> it sounds.
Right, thx for the correction, I was too casual with "crippled", should
have put some antlers on it. Both the ACL and LW freebies are extremely
usable for exploring CL, and LW has enough juice to run Cello, my fairly
hefty GUI.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>> *snicker* I wouldn't be bothering to learn Lisp right now if it weren't
>> for open-source implementations like CLISP and SBCL. I don't care a
>> whit for the proprietary-software ideology; I see a neat language worth
>> my effort to wrap my brain around.
>
> Just curious: what made you try Lisp seriously in the first place?
I'd had Scheme in school, and largely forgot about it afterward. Then
just recently I read some of Paul Graham's essays, and heard him speak
at the spam conference at MIT this winter. So when I started getting
restless with my current set of languages, I figured the next one I
should learn would be Lisp. (The next one after that will probably be
ML.)
I'm coming to Lisp from Python, which is what I do most of my "real
work" coding in these days, with the usual "Unix languages" (C, Perl,
and shell) before that. I try to tell people that I'm not a programmer
-- I'm actually a sysadmin / security technician who happens to like to
learn and use programming languages. It doesn't work -- I still get
handed odd programming jobs to do.
Besides, my girlfriend is learning Scheme and if I learn Common Lisp we
can compare notes on the difference. Don't worry -- we aren't going to
have any Lisp-1 / Lisp-2 flamewars, I'll leave that to this froup. :)
> And not quite a corollary: why weren't you turned off by all the usual
> reasons for not using Lisp?
Most of them boil down to "it's not popular". Bah. Neither is ML. I
already know popular languages (and have even looked at Java, bleah).
The others are either "there aren't enough standard libraries" (which is
true) or else BS. "Lisp is hard" is BS; it's easier than Perl since it
is not always biting my ass with inconsistencies. It may well be harder
than Python.
The standard libraries issue is hard, because the operational word there
is not "libraries", it's "standard". People like me are used to systems
like Perl and Python, where the language is not only standard and open
itself, but comes with lots of easy-to-use interfaces to common network
protocols, data file formats, and so forth. This is easier for Perl
because there's only one implementation (Python has two, and manages as
well) ...
> Are you thinking about using Lisp for serious work, or is this purely
> out of curiosity? Other?
Both, of course -- same as how I got into Python. In my experience,
serious work grows out of curiosity. :)
> btw, even without the open source CLs you could explore on crippled
> freebies and then jump to Lispworks for less than a $1000, IIRC. Would
> that work for you?
If I wanted to learn a proprietary language, I know where to find C#.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
Thx for the detailed response.
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>*snicker* I wouldn't be bothering to learn Lisp right now if it weren't
>>>for open-source implementations like CLISP and SBCL. I don't care a
>>>whit for the proprietary-software ideology; I see a neat language worth
>>>my effort to wrap my brain around.
>>
>>Just curious: what made you try Lisp seriously in the first place?
>
>
> I'd had Scheme in school, and largely forgot about it afterward. Then
> just recently I read some of Paul Graham's essays, and heard him speak
> at the spam conference at MIT this winter.
I guess I should take back the mean things I said about Graham when he
slammed CL while explaining why he was doing Arc. Did you also run into
stuff by Norvig, a recent convert to Python? I'll have to take back what
i said about him, too, when he slammed CL. :)
>>And not quite a corollary: why weren't you turned off by all the usual
>>reasons for not using Lisp?
>
>
> Most of them boil down to "it's not popular". Bah. Neither is ML. I
> already know popular languages (and have even looked at Java, bleah).
I hear this a lot, esp. the bit about the reigning champion, Java. I
only played with it a little for fun, didn't have to live with the beast.
> The standard libraries issue is hard, because the operational word there
> is not "libraries", it's "standard".
This may be the same as "it's not popular", and if so that should
improve as more people start using CL. I guess it also comes from there
being competing commercial implementations more interested in winning
than standardizing.
>>btw, even without the open source CLs you could explore on crippled
>>freebies and then jump to Lispworks for less than a $1000, IIRC. Would
>>that work for you?
>
>
> If I wanted to learn a proprietary language, I know where to find C#.
Digression: is C# getting /any/ traction? Mindshare? jes wondering.
Anyway, your comment still has me confused. When I use ACL or LW, the
product is proprietary but the language is not. Do you mean that, as I
noted above, you would end up using their proprietary GUIs or other
libraries, so in the end yer in the same fix as if the language were
proprietary. If so, agreed.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Thx for the detailed response.
>
> Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>>*snicker* I wouldn't be bothering to learn Lisp right now if it weren't
>>>>for open-source implementations like CLISP and SBCL. I don't care a
>>>>whit for the proprietary-software ideology; I see a neat language worth
>>>>my effort to wrap my brain around.
>>>
>>>Just curious: what made you try Lisp seriously in the first place?
>> I'd had Scheme in school, and largely forgot about it afterward.
>> Then
>> just recently I read some of Paul Graham's essays, and heard him speak
>> at the spam conference at MIT this winter.
>
> I guess I should take back the mean things I said about Graham when he
> slammed CL while explaining why he was doing Arc. Did you also run
> into stuff by Norvig, a recent convert to Python? I'll have to take
> back what i said about him, too, when he slammed CL. :)
[snip]
I don't think it's fair to say Norvig and Graham "slammed" CL in
anyway. These are the only two "really famous" (or really rich ;))
guys that I can think of that constantly supported Lisp and devoted
the majority of their career to working with it. Norvig gave the Lisp
community one of the best texts out there, FCOL. This is certainly
not "slamming" in my book (no pun intended.)
The same applies for Graham; as evidenced from the original poster, some of
Graham's essays actually turn people into Lisp. I consider myself to
be one of those people as well. Most importantly, Graham's two Lisp
books are already considered classics within the Lisp
community. Yeah, so Graham designed Arc, so what. It's still a
Lisp. If he didn't like Lisp, Arc wouldn't share 90% of Lisp's
features. And Norvig.. he flirted with Python a little, so? In my mind
those incidents are secondary and almost insignificant when compared
to the major contributions that came from Norvig and Graham.
Cheers,
--
Yarden Katz <····@underlevel.net> | Mind the gap
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>
>> I'd had Scheme in school, and largely forgot about it afterward. Then
>> just recently I read some of Paul Graham's essays, and heard him speak
>> at the spam conference at MIT this winter.
>
> I guess I should take back the mean things I said about Graham when he
> slammed CL while explaining why he was doing Arc. Did you also run into
> stuff by Norvig, a recent convert to Python? I'll have to take back what
> i said about him, too, when he slammed CL. :)
Well, you asked why I looked at Lisp, not CL. I wish Graham luck at
Arc, but when I looked around for "most likely Lisp to be useful to me
sometime soon", CL kind of stuck its head out and said "hi".
>> Most of them boil down to "it's not popular". Bah. Neither is ML. I
>> already know popular languages (and have even looked at Java, bleah).
>
> I hear this a lot, esp. the bit about the reigning champion, Java. I
> only played with it a little for fun, didn't have to live with the beast.
Java's better than C++, except for in the places it's worse. :)
I wouldn't call it "the reigning champion" among languages as a whole,
even though it is rather widely used in some particularly flashy sectors
such as "enterprise Web programming" whatever that means. For instance,
in my job sector (mostly Linux and Unix system administration), Perl is
by far the dominant language; it's also still very strong on the Web (as
is PHP).
Other people might say Visual Basic is "the champion" in terms of number
of applications delivered ... whether any of those applications are any
good, is another question. (The comparable product on the Macintosh,
called RealBasic, has a reputation for being used to write royal
stinkers of shareware programs.)
>> The standard libraries issue is hard, because the operational word there
>> is not "libraries", it's "standard".
>
> This may be the same as "it's not popular", and if so that should
> improve as more people start using CL.
I would guess so. Though, honestly, once I discovered Debian has this
thing called "common-lisp-controller" that is good at compiling Lisp
libraries for half-a-dozen different implementations, I got a lot
happier with the library situation right away.
It works like this: Currently I have three CLs installed: CLISP, SBCL,
and CMUCL. When I install the Debian package for the "cl-ppcre" regexp
library, for instance, the install script registers it with
common-lisp-controller and it becomes available -- and precompiled --
for all three.
This works pretty smoothly with any library that is (1) packaged for
Debian, and (2) portable across these CLs. However I have encountered a
bunch that do not seem to function in CLISP -- I haven't investigated
closely but I'm guessing they use CMUCL/SBCL-specific features.
> I guess it also comes from there being competing commercial
> implementations more interested in winning than standardizing.
If that is the case, it forms an analogy that I'm guessing it might
irritate some Lispers for me to mention (and has probably been used
before): it sounds an awful lot like the proprietary Unix vendors.
>>>btw, even without the open source CLs you could explore on crippled
>>>freebies and then jump to Lispworks for less than a $1000, IIRC. Would
>>>that work for you?
>>
>> If I wanted to learn a proprietary language, I know where to find C#.
>
> Digression: is C# getting /any/ traction? Mindshare? jes wondering.
I doubt it'll unseat Java any time soon, but a lot of people seem to be
fiddling with it. It's gotten enough attention that some of the GNU
folks are trying to clone it and avoid getting sued ...
> Anyway, your comment still has me confused. When I use ACL or LW, the
> product is proprietary but the language is not. Do you mean that, as I
> noted above, you would end up using their proprietary GUIs or other
> libraries, so in the end yer in the same fix as if the language were
> proprietary. If so, agreed.
Well yes. My definition of "language" includes the vocabulary as well
as the grammar. You need both in order to say anything.
(It's kind of like the word "operating system", I suppose. Used to be,
as I understand it, that meant what we call the "kernel" now -- the bare
interface between programs and the hardware. Now, people use "operating
system" to mean what was called a "distribution" -- an environment as
complicated as, say, Solaris or Debian, with hundreds of libraries and
applications distributed along with the core.
It's what the Python folks call the "batteries included" philosophy --
and why whilst Python's grammar has not changed very much, the standard
vocabulary has expanded greatly. "Batteries included" lets new users
and contributors get up to speed and productive a lot quicker.)
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
The world rejoiced as Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Digression: is C# getting /any/ traction? Mindshare? jes wondering.
I'll bet it is getting some amongst those that have been wont to
deploy applications in Visual BASIC.
I did a bit of fiddling around with C# (more particularly, MONO, the
"libre" implementation), just to see what it's like.
static void foo () {
int i, j;
j = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
j++;
Console.Write(i);
Console.Write(" ");
if (j > 8) {
Console.WriteLine();
j = 0;
}
}
Console.WriteLine();
System.Console.WriteLine("Hello, world!");
}
It is remarkably hard to tell the difference between C# and Java. The
most notable difference I can see is that where Java pretty much
eschews having anything resembling multiple inheritance, C# side-steps
it a bit by having "mix-ins", with pretty much the same model used in
Ruby.
I haven't mentioned Lisp yet; that's not too unfair, as C# is fairly
clearly NOT intended as competition to anything of the sort.
The nearest thing that should be considered *somewhat* relevant is F#,
which is essentially "OCaml for .NET." That only because F# tries to
be pretty functional, and Lisp can be used in some functional ways.
F# isn't *nearly* as dynamic.
--
output = reverse("ac.notelrac.teneerf" ·@" "454aa")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
The IETF motto: "Rough consensus *and* working code."
On Tue, 27 May 2003 13:08:56 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Will Hartung wrote:
>> Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
>
>Simple marketing: the arrogance and exclusivity of Lispniks is Lisp's
>biggest draw. That is how outsiders know Lisp is special. High prices,
>velvet ropes barring entry -- who wants to join a club that anyone can join?
Och... You are not Politically Correct: on this list Lispnicks are
Good, the Rest Of The World is Evil.
A.L.
Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 13:08:56 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Will Hartung wrote:
>>
>>>Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
>>
>>Simple marketing: the arrogance and exclusivity of Lispniks is Lisp's
>>biggest draw. That is how outsiders know Lisp is special. High prices,
>>velvet ropes barring entry -- who wants to join a club that anyone can join?
>
>
>
> Och... You are not Politically Correct: on this list Lispnicks are
> Good, the Rest Of The World is Evil.
Evil? I prefer unsaved. Or the technical term for one who is unsaved
simply because they have not been exposed to The Light: heathen.
ps. PC is no longer PC.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: No SOAP for Lisp???
Date:
Message-ID: <878ysspa1e.fsf@wyrd.be>
"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> writes:
> Why we struggle so hard to keep Lisp an island, I'll never understand.
I don't think "we" (whoever you're referring to) do. The Original
Poster would probably have gotten a very different reaction if his
post sounded more like "*I* want to implement SOAP" and less like "Why
hasn't *someone* already implemented SOAP?".
--
Jane - Daria? Come on, the neighbors are starting to talk.
Daria - Um... good. Soon they'll progress to cave drawings and civilization
will be on its way.
SOAP is for smelly non-Lisp geeks. Lispers have no problems with their
personal hygiene.
--
; 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 <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> SOAP is for smelly non-Lisp geeks. Lispers have no problems with their
> personal hygiene.
Another interpretation would be that SOAP is irrelevant for Lispers
because they don't expect to interact with other people anyway, so
their personal hygiene doesn't matter much.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Synopsis: Meet TFBurdick Night [was Re: No SOAP for Lisp???]
Date:
Message-ID: <3ECD7D6D.4080601@nyc.rr.com>
Henrik Motakef wrote:
> Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>
>>SOAP is for smelly non-Lisp geeks. Lispers have no problems with their
>>personal hygiene.
>
>
> Another interpretation would be that SOAP is irrelevant for Lispers
> because they don't expect to interact with other people anyway, so
> their personal hygiene doesn't matter much.
You should go to a lispnik meeting. You might be home by dawn. Great
crowd, really.
Speaking of which, I owe CLL a report on "Meet Thomas Burdick Night"
here in NYC last week. Deets to follow, but it was a huge success. I
even understood some of his talk on program verification without
compiler support. People who actually know something seemed to enjoy it,
too. Followed by multiple besotted bull sessions all around the room.
Only very minor drawback was that the ALU president could not hear all
of Thomas's talk because of a noisy side-conversation down at his end of
the table. :)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
The world rejoiced as ········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote:
> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
I think it would be a better thing to make an XML-RPC implementation
work well; that's a simpler standard, *much* easier to make
interoperable.
SOAP explicitly intends to become a growing "ball of mud" for all
sorts of things to stick to. I did "technical/editorial review" work
on a book last year on "SOAP Security" (a *terrible* book, In My
Opinion; I warned the publisher about *severe* flaws...) and the
entire book was about "ball of mud" standards, all of which was fit to
make the reader feel pretty "dirty."
In contrast, XML-RPC stayed small, and the few popular extensions are
not half bad.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat ·@" [name;tld];;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/soap.html
"...[Linux's] capacity to talk via any medium except smoke signals."
-- Dr. Greg Wettstein, Roger Maris Cancer Center
Just curious - did the book get published? Did the publisher take heed of
your opinions?
Alan.
"Christopher Browne" <········@acm.org> wrote in message
··················@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
> The world rejoiced as ········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote:
> > Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
>
> I think it would be a better thing to make an XML-RPC implementation
> work well; that's a simpler standard, *much* easier to make
> interoperable.
>
> SOAP explicitly intends to become a growing "ball of mud" for all
> sorts of things to stick to. I did "technical/editorial review" work
> on a book last year on "SOAP Security" (a *terrible* book, In My
> Opinion; I warned the publisher about *severe* flaws...) and the
> entire book was about "ball of mud" standards, all of which was fit to
> make the reader feel pretty "dirty."
>
> In contrast, XML-RPC stayed small, and the few popular extensions are
> not half bad.
> --
> let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat ·@" [name;tld];;
> http://cbbrowne.com/info/soap.html
> "...[Linux's] capacity to talk via any medium except smoke signals."
> -- Dr. Greg Wettstein, Roger Maris Cancer Center
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, "Alan Walker" <·························@charter.net> belched out...:
> Just curious - did the book get published? Did the publisher take
> heed of your opinions?
The lower level folk seemed to be listening, but upper management
apparently were taking "publish-or-perish" a little too literally, so
it did briefly reach store shelves before the publisher (Wrox)
evaporated.
I did suggest "local improvements," as that was certainly my
responsibility, and some were made. But there were whole chapters
that were kept that weren't about "Web Services" at all.
The point that kept being missed was that "Web Services" are
fundamentally about transferring XML messages using HTTP. I am
convinced that some of the authors didn't grasp that seemingly simple
fact.
The flip side was that the book was about security in this area. I am
similarly convinced that _most_ of the authors had no mental model of
what "security" is. Most would summarize IETF and W3C standards, but
apparently had none of the mental framework to be able to explain
_why_ these standards would help in building secure systems, or to
explain weaknesses to watch out for. I'm no "security expert," but it
isn't difficult to put together a framework that allows analyzing this
sort of thing rationally.
My model:
Security is about defending from attacks, so you have to put on a
somewhat "military" hat where you look for attacks and
vulnerabilities. Throw in that there are multiple major axes of
security:
- Confidentiality
- Identity/Authentication
- Availability
- Integrity
and it ought not be _too_ difficult to blather on in a manner that
will at least _sound_ wise.
Discuss a standard, blather for a page or three about how those four
axes apply to the standard, and talk about attacks the standard
protects against, and about attacks it *doesn't* protect against, and
the result should be credible as being "about security." In fact,
review every page of the book to make sure it consistently presents
that model and the book will probably be way above average.
There's an old O'Reilly book on computer security that I keep around
that did this well.
The one I reviewed, well, didn't...
ObLisp...
It would be an interesting exercise to map the "basic security
principles" onto LispMs, to see where strengths /and vulnerabilities/
lay. I would expect the mix to be interesting. I'd expect there to
be some significant vulnerabilities, as well as some significant
strengths.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat ·@" [name;tld];;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
"Not me, guy. I read the Bash man page each day like a Jehovah's
Witness reads the Bible. No wait, the Bash man page IS the bible.
Excuse me..." (More on confusing aliases, taken from
comp.os.linux.misc)
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: No SOAP for Lisp???
Date:
Message-ID: <86wugif6pf.fsf@wyrd.be>
········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) writes:
> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
There's a SOAP module in the contribs for cl-xml.
--
"I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking
them." Jane Austen
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be> wrote in message news:<··············@wyrd.be>...
> ········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) writes:
>
> > Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
>
> There's a SOAP module in the contribs for cl-xml.
That's just a little piece. But at least is a start, thanks.
········@acm.org (Fernando Mato Mira) writes:
> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
What is the real motivation behind you question? Did you see the
SOAP specification? It's huge and nobody has been able to implement
it completely. It is a real pain to use even for its best
fans.
Even if I'm not an XML-addic, XML-RPC is quite well specificied (one
page of text) and very simple. It should be sufficient for a lot of
needs.
--
Frederic Brunel
Senior Software Engineer
In-Fusio - Mobile Game Connections
Frederic Brunel <···············@in-fusio.com> wrote in message news:<··············@buzz.in-fusio.com>...
> Even if I'm not an XML-addic, XML-RPC is quite well specificied (one
> page of text) and very simple. It should be sufficient for a lot of
> needs.
Not sufficient when the service you have to connect to is exported as SOAP.
Probably not useful to you right now, as we don't have a public
release... But I have a partial SOAP processor implemented that we are
using here to talk to a Java program. At some point I have to talk to a
few people and put in a bit of time into making it open source...
Sunil
Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
Sunil Mishra <·······@notmyemail.com> writes:
> Probably not useful to you right now, as we don't have a public
> release... But I have a partial SOAP processor implemented that we
> are using here to talk to a Java program. At some point I have to
> talk to a few people and put in a bit of time into making it open
> source...
I'd be interested in taking a look at that code and maybe helping out
a bit--I'm working on a Common Lisp book and toward the end of the
book was thinking about trying to put a web services interface on one
of the example apps I'm planning to write. If you're thinking of open
sourcing your stuff, it might save me quite a bit of work (or, indeed,
make something possible that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do in the
time I have.) Let me know if you're interested--I won't need it for at
least a few weeks but would be happy to look at code whenever you have
something you want to share.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
OK, will post on the newsgroup once I have my act together.
Sunil
Peter Seibel wrote:
> Sunil Mishra <·······@notmyemail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Probably not useful to you right now, as we don't have a public
>>release... But I have a partial SOAP processor implemented that we
>>are using here to talk to a Java program. At some point I have to
>>talk to a few people and put in a bit of time into making it open
>>source...
>
>
> I'd be interested in taking a look at that code and maybe helping out
> a bit--I'm working on a Common Lisp book and toward the end of the
> book was thinking about trying to put a web services interface on one
> of the example apps I'm planning to write. If you're thinking of open
> sourcing your stuff, it might save me quite a bit of work (or, indeed,
> make something possible that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do in the
> time I have.) Let me know if you're interested--I won't need it for at
> least a few weeks but would be happy to look at code whenever you have
> something you want to share.
>
> -Peter
>
Peter Seibel wrote:
> I'd be interested in taking a look at that code and maybe helping out
> a bit--I'm working on a Common Lisp book and toward the end of the
> book was thinking about trying to put a web services interface on one
> of the example apps I'm planning to write.
Hi, is this the Lisp community's long awaited
"Lisp and Databases"
or "Web Programming in Lisp"
or "Paradigms of Business Programming: Case Studies
in Common Lisp"
book!
Has anyone seen the Franz book on practical Lisp applications yet,
or know when it is coming out?
Speaking of which, does anyone know the price or availability
of the ILU 2002 Proceedings? (I e-mailed the contact address
at Franz that was mentioned earlier, but no response so far.)
·······@yahoo.com (c hore) writes:
> Peter Seibel wrote:
> > I'd be interested in taking a look at that code and maybe helping out
> > a bit--I'm working on a Common Lisp book and toward the end of the
> > book was thinking about trying to put a web services interface on one
> > of the example apps I'm planning to write.
>
> Hi, is this the Lisp community's long awaited
> "Lisp and Databases"
> or "Web Programming in Lisp"
> or "Paradigms of Business Programming: Case Studies
> in Common Lisp"
> book!
>
> Has anyone seen the Franz book on practical Lisp applications yet,
> or know when it is coming out?
Actually I think it's this one. Franz originally put me in touch with
the publisher (after they had done the work of convincing the
publisher it was a good idea) and the working title is Practical
Common Lisp. Anyway, it's none of the other three you mentioned.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com> writes:
> ·······@yahoo.com (c hore) writes:
>
>> Peter Seibel wrote:
>> > I'd be interested in taking a look at that code and maybe helping out
>> > a bit--I'm working on a Common Lisp book and toward the end of the
>> > book was thinking about trying to put a web services interface on one
>> > of the example apps I'm planning to write.
>>
>> Hi, is this the Lisp community's long awaited
>> "Lisp and Databases"
>> or "Web Programming in Lisp"
>> or "Paradigms of Business Programming: Case Studies
>> in Common Lisp"
>> book!
>>
>> Has anyone seen the Franz book on practical Lisp applications yet,
>> or know when it is coming out?
>
> Actually I think it's this one. Franz originally put me in touch with
> the publisher (after they had done the work of convincing the
> publisher it was a good idea) and the working title is Practical
> Common Lisp. Anyway, it's none of the other three you mentioned.
Hi there,
I've been working on web services and OWL reasoning in Lisp (some of
the work may get submitted to ILC) and I've been interested in SOAP
support too. I am having lots of trouble running CL-XML with my
particular Lisp on Linux, so I haven't been able to try out its SOAP
module ('simple-soap.lisp').
Right now our set up is as follows: we use Franz's jlinker to call
Java functions to communicate with the services, the results are
then used in Lisp to call a native planning system, and the
finalized solution (what services to call, etc.) is returned. I
have been thinking about writing a SOAP serializer to replace this
Java component from scratch, but I gather this would be a large
project and it would be a bit silly to start it before checking out
what CL-XML has to offer.
I also dabbled with the idea of writing a WSDL description generator
for Lisp webservices, similar to WSDL::Generator for Perl and the
Java2WSDL package for Java. However, due to Lisp's dynamicness and
complexity of data structure it seems that this would be a lot
harder than it is for Java or Perl--what do you think?
It's great to hear that other people are taking up such current
technologies (web services) and using them in Lisp :)
Best wishes,
--
Yarden Katz <····@underlevel.net> | Mind the gap
Probably not useful to you right now, as we don't have a public
release... But I have a partial SOAP processor implemented that we are
using here to talk to a Java program. At some point I have to talk to a
few people and put in a bit of time into making it open source...
Sunil
Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.
Probably not useful to you right now, as we don't have a public
release... But I have a partial SOAP processor implemented that we are
using here to talk to a Java program. At some point I have to talk to a
few people and put in a bit of time into making it open source...
Sunil
Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> Definitely lots of stuff to work on.