From: David Combs
Subject: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <blik8v$l5v$1@panix1.panix.com>
Good Lord!
Here I was thinking that finally there's a conference
(best of all, a LISP conference!) that requires no
hotel room, no travel expense (well, maybe $14/day
commute-via-train fee), since I live right nearby,
in New Rochelle.
No such luck!
I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
walk in the door, plus some $200 per day just to
listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
And I'm merely a "lurker" in the lisp world, fascinated
by all the cool things that have made their way into
general computer-sci, only thanks to original idea
via lisp community.
(Hell, I don't even use the language, don't even
have a way to use lisp (free!) (sunblade-100, solaris9),
hear (here in this group) mainly bad things about the
freebie systems, eg cmu-lisp, and anything decent seemingly
costing *thousands* of dollars. (How is one to be able to
"play" with the language, without laying out piles of money?)
Not a good way for creating more lisp users -- isn't it in
the software-companies' interest to enable that?)
Likewise for this conference; seems like the software
companies would find it in their interest to subsidize
the conf, to maybe help increase their market?
Anyway, I'm just bitching. No discounts; am not an (enrolled) "student"
(am 3x the age for usual student), but am merely *extremely*
interested in the language, its new directions, clever
tricks, etc. (Yes, I already have all the books.)
Anyway -- bitch, bitch, bitch ... ad nauseum.
(Especially when I see who'll be presenting papers -- so many
of the well-known lisp gurus, and all the others will
surely be there in the audience, asking questions, making
points, ... Drat!)
David
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <m31xtvoyih.fsf@europa.pienet>
·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> Good Lord!
>
> Here I was thinking that finally there's a conference
> (best of all, a LISP conference!) that requires no
> hotel room, no travel expense (well, maybe $14/day
> commute-via-train fee), since I live right nearby,
> in New Rochelle.
>
> No such luck!
>
> I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
> walk in the door, plus some $200 per day just to
> listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
> for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
Its $700 if you want the works, otherwise its $200 a day. Still kind
of pricey, but its a great event. It inspires all sorts of deep
hacking, and you can feel the brain-power crackling around you. Its
also wonderfully informal, all the geniuses, misanthropes and legends
are right there around you.
Gregm
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <87y8w3jch1.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
David Combs wrote:
> I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
> walk in the door, plus some $200 per day just to
> listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
> for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
Most technical conferences of this sort are expensive.
The ILC is not particularly intended to be an evangelistic
event;.
> And I'm merely a "lurker" in the lisp world, fascinated
> by all the cool things that have made their way into
> general computer-sci, only thanks to original idea
> via lisp community.
>
> (Hell, I don't even use the language, don't even
> have a way to use lisp (free!) (sunblade-100, solaris9),
> hear (here in this group) mainly bad things about the
> freebie systems, eg cmu-lisp, and anything decent seemingly
> costing *thousands* of dollars. (How is one to be able to
> "play" with the language, without laying out piles of money?)
> Not a good way for creating more lisp users -- isn't it in
> the software-companies' interest to enable that?)
I don't know what bad things you've heard about the
free systems other than that they aren't as polished
as the commercial ones. I think CMU CL is a very good
system, and perfectly adequate for playing with.
I can't imagine what it is about your Solaris system
that stops you using Lisp altogether. CLISP will run
on almost anything.
> Likewise for this conference; seems like the software
> companies would find it in their interest to subsidize
> the conf, to maybe help increase their market?
Seems like an odd way of doing it.
- It wouldn't do much to increase interest in Lisp.
Anyone who would go to a Lisp conference is
already interested in Lisp.
- It wouldn't do much to convert interest into sales.
Anyone who's interested enough to go but can't or won't
pay to go is unlikely to be spending enough on Lisp
products to make up for the cost.
Sure, I'd love free conferences too, but it doesn't look
like a great commercial move to me.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <86r81vge4e.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> David Combs wrote:
>
> > I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
> > walk in the door, plus some $200 per day just to
> > listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
> > for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
>
> Most technical conferences of this sort are expensive.
> The ILC is not particularly intended to be an evangelistic
> event;.
>
> > And I'm merely a "lurker" in the lisp world, fascinated
> > by all the cool things that have made their way into
> > general computer-sci, only thanks to original idea
> > via lisp community.
> >
> > (Hell, I don't even use the language, don't even
> > have a way to use lisp (free!) (sunblade-100, solaris9),
> > hear (here in this group) mainly bad things about the
> > freebie systems, eg cmu-lisp, and anything decent seemingly
> > costing *thousands* of dollars. (How is one to be able to
> > "play" with the language, without laying out piles of money?)
> > Not a good way for creating more lisp users -- isn't it in
> > the software-companies' interest to enable that?)
>
> I don't know what bad things you've heard about the
> free systems other than that they aren't as polished
> as the commercial ones. I think CMU CL is a very good
> system, and perfectly adequate for playing with.
>
> I can't imagine what it is about your Solaris system
> that stops you using Lisp altogether. CLISP will run
> on almost anything.
>
> > Likewise for this conference; seems like the software
> > companies would find it in their interest to subsidize
> > the conf, to maybe help increase their market?
>
> Sure, I'd love free conferences too, but it doesn't look
> like a great commercial move to me.
There is no such thing as a free conference, it will cost me about
$2,500 to go to the conference. This counts the 750 for the
conference and the income I loose by attending. The conference is the
cheap part.
marc
>
> --
> Gareth McCaughan
> .sig under construc
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <877k3nqb6b.fsf@noetbook.telent.net>
·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> (Hell, I don't even use the language, don't even
> have a way to use lisp (free!) (sunblade-100, solaris9),
I'm pretty sure that one or more of CLISP, CMUCL, SBCL will run on
that. Possibly even all three. You might need GNU as if you want to
build SBCL on it.
> hear (here in this group) mainly bad things about the
> freebie systems, eg cmu-lisp, and anything decent seemingly
> costing *thousands* of dollars. (How is one to be able to
> "play" with the language, without laying out piles of money?)
> Not a good way for creating more lisp users -- isn't it in
> the software-companies' interest to enable that?)
It's interesting that you've picked up the impression that CMUCL has
mostly bad things said about it. It may not compare to a fully
fledged Allegro Enterprise Edition or whatever, but it's still a
pretty good Lisp - and as such, likely to be an improvement on
a free implementation of whatever other language you were making a
mental comparison with.
Or you could get one of the trial editions (admittedly maybe not for
Solaris, I don't now)
> Anyway, I'm just bitching. No discounts; am not an (enrolled) "student"
> (am 3x the age for usual student), but am merely *extremely*
> interested in the language, its new directions, clever
> tricks, etc. (Yes, I already have all the books.)
Do you go to the LispNYC meetings? They may not be as full of
well-known gurus - though I hear that Kenny "simple programer" Tilton
is a regular attendee - but it's a place to start.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
From: David Combs
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <bm594k$54r$1@reader2.panix.com>
In article <··············@noetbook.telent.net>,
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> wrote:
>...
>Do you go to the LispNYC meetings? They may not be as full of
>well-known gurus - though I hear that Kenny "simple programer" Tilton
>is a regular attendee - but it's a place to start.
Thanks for the suggestion of lispNYC; I guess I can find
it via google.
Thanks!
David
David Combs wrote:
> In article <··············@noetbook.telent.net>,
> Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> wrote:
>
>>...
>
>
>>Do you go to the LispNYC meetings? They may not be as full of
>>well-known gurus - though I hear that Kenny "simple programer" Tilton
>>is a regular attendee - but it's a place to start.
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion of lispNYC; I guess I can find
> it via google.
http://www.lispnyc.org/
We've had talks by Marco Antoniotti, Thomas Burdick, and Anton von
Stratten.
Kenny just drinks a lot. (But now that he is famous he can speak of
himself in the third person.)
--
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey
Speaking of ILC 2003, do any of you New Yorkers have a guess as to
what the weather's going to be like next week? Yes, I know we'll spend
most of the time in the hotel, but I'd like to pack *something* to wear
out in the big blue room [or gray or whatever color it is there]...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Speaking of ILC 2003, do any of you New Yorkers have a guess as to
> what the weather's going to be like next week? Yes, I know we'll spend
> most of the time in the hotel, but I'd like to pack *something* to wear
> out in the big blue room [or gray or whatever color it is there]...
AOL! I want to know too!
I couldn't wait for answers to your question, so I had a look at
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk, and it looks quite decent, lots
of sun (but maybe a little rain).
Mon Oct 13 Tue Oct 14 Wed Oct 15
Minimum
Temperature
15�C / 59�F 12�C / 53�F 16�C / 60�F
Maximum
Temperature
23�C / 73�F 18�C / 64�F 22�C / 71�F
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
>
>>Speaking of ILC 2003, do any of you New Yorkers have a guess as to
>>what the weather's going to be like next week? Yes, I know we'll spend
>>most of the time in the hotel, but I'd like to pack *something* to wear
>>out in the big blue room [or gray or whatever color it is there]...
>
>
> AOL! I want to know too!
>
> I couldn't wait for answers to your question, so I had a look at
> http://www.weatheronline.co.uk, and it looks quite decent, lots
> of sun (but maybe a little rain).
>
> Mon Oct 13 Tue Oct 14 Wed Oct 15
> Minimum
> Temperature
> 15�C / 59�F 12�C / 53�F 16�C / 60�F
> Maximum
> Temperature
> 23�C / 73�F 18�C / 64�F 22�C / 71�F
>
Here's the ski report:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/ski/local/10023?whatprefs=&y=13&x=16
50s-60s (F), light rain Sun+Wed.
--
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Here's the ski report:
>
> http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/ski/local/10023?whatprefs=&y=13&x=16
>
> 50s-60s (F), light rain Sun+Wed.
Hey, as a native norwegian, I bring my skis _everywhere_, and I was
looking forward to skiing in Central Park, but the forecast sure looks
disappointing!
Is it the global warming?
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>Here's the ski report:
>>
>> http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/ski/local/10023?whatprefs=&y=13&x=16
>>
>>50s-60s (F), light rain Sun+Wed.
>
>
> Hey, as a native norwegian, I bring my skis _everywhere_, and I was
> looking forward to skiing in Central Park, but the forecast sure looks
> disappointing!
>
> Is it the global warming?
It's the burning at the stake of Boston Red Sox fans.
Bring your (wheeled) skates if you want to do Central Park. Ask for "the
bandshell" in the middle of the park, even with 72nd St. Informal
music/dance-skating any nice evening.
Or skate along the river, from Battery Park (where you get the tour
boats to the Statue of Liberty) all the way up to 79th street if you like.
--
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <737fb.773$pv6.65@twister.nyc.rr.com>
David Combs wrote:
> Good Lord!
>
> Here I was thinking that finally there's a conference
> (best of all, a LISP conference!) that requires no
> hotel room, no travel expense (well, maybe $14/day
> commute-via-train fee), since I live right nearby,
> in New Rochelle.
woo-hoo!
>
> No such luck!
>
> I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
> walk in the door, plus some $200 per day
not!!! you need that Adult Literacy conference! <g> $750 gets you the
whole shebang, or $200 a day if you want to pick and choose.
just to
> listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
> for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
>
> And I'm merely a "lurker" in the lisp world, fascinated
> by all the cool things that have made their way into
> general computer-sci, only thanks to original idea
> via lisp community.
>
> (Hell, I don't even use the language, don't even
> have a way to use lisp (free!) (sunblade-100, solaris9),
> hear (here in this group) mainly bad things about the
> freebie systems, eg cmu-lisp, and anything decent seemingly
> costing *thousands* of dollars. (How is one to be able to
> "play" with the language, without laying out piles of money?)
well, as one who spends a lot of time trashing free CLs, look, if you
are using Unix you already take for granted a lot of the crap that
pisses me off. So stop whining, grab a Lisp and Emacs and do something.
You'll have so much fun out of the box that the crap won't matter much.
Either that or you are not really a programmer.
> Not a good way for creating more lisp users -- isn't it in
> the software-companies' interest to enable that?)
Yes. That might explain the trial versions. <sigh>
>
> Likewise for this conference; seems like the software
> companies would find it in their interest to subsidize
> the conf, to maybe help increase their market?
Because they make so much money selling this super-popular language?
Look, conferences are for the persuaded. Lowering the price will not
increase enrollment sufficiently to offset the lower price.
>
> Anyway, I'm just bitching. No discounts; am not an (enrolled) "student"
> (am 3x the age for usual student), but am merely *extremely*
> interested in the language, its new directions, clever
> tricks, etc. (Yes, I already have all the books.)
>
> Anyway -- bitch, bitch, bitch ... ad nauseum.
OK, if you are gracious enough to admit that, I will admit that I have
also posited that the price is too high. OTOH, you seem not to grok that
you can grab a day for $200. McCarthy is penciled in for Wednesday,
along with some clown named Tilton.
> (Especially when I see who'll be presenting papers -- so many
> of the well-known lisp gurus, and all the others will
> surely be there in the audience, asking questions, making
> points, ... Drat!)
And $400 gets you two days. <g> But what makes me think I'll see you
there for all four?
You are right, ray (ALU president) has pulled together a Conference to
Remember, one I think will be looked back on as a turning point (in part
because it comes at a time when Lisp anyway is picking up some heat).
But it will still be a select group--Lisp is not there quite yet and the
economy sucks and the price is a limiting factor--which means anyone who
does attend gets to rub elbows with True Lisp Legends.
We few, we happy few. By next year folks like Graham will be arriving in
limousines and surrounded by bodyguards. It's now or never.
kt
From: ·············@comcast.net
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <brsy3h2j.fsf@comcast.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> OK, if you are gracious enough to admit that, I will admit that I have
> also posited that the price is too high. OTOH, you seem not to grok
> that you can grab a day for $200. McCarthy is penciled in for
> Wednesday, along with some clown named Tilton.
I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton dude?
> You are right, ray (ALU president) has pulled together a Conference to
> Remember, one I think will be looked back on as a turning point (in
> part because it comes at a time when Lisp anyway is picking up some
> heat). But it will still be a select group--Lisp is not there quite
> yet and the economy sucks and the price is a limiting factor--which
> means anyone who does attend gets to rub elbows with True Lisp Legends.
Sigh. Sounds like it's going to be a blast.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <sDefb.3336$pv6.3061@twister.nyc.rr.com>
·············@comcast.net wrote:
> I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton dude?
McCarthy said, "Let data be code be data." Tilton said, "Let data have
causal power."
I think it's comic relief, he's a comp.lang.lisp nutcase. Goes off at
8AM on McCarthy Day. if the alarm works I'll let you know what the hell
he is going on about.
Sunrise With Kenny? Well, the Dalai Lama's first visit to NYC was a
sunrise meditation in the Sheep Meadow with just 5,000 in attendance....
oh, OK. :)
gungalunga gunga la din
kenny
ps. wednesday I talk about RoboCup, not sure when or even for certain I
will be talking about Cells. Monday is Lisp day, but there are so many
great talks going down. The Cells talk is coming along nicely tho, hope
it happens. k
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> ·············@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton dude?
>
> McCarthy said, "Let data be code be data." Tilton said, "Let data have
> causal power."
I think the notion of "data having causal power" predates Tilton. Perhaps by
thousands of years.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <c9hfb.4894$pv6.3626@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Gorbag wrote:
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> ························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>>
>>·············@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton dude?
>>
>>McCarthy said, "Let data be code be data." Tilton said, "Let data have
>>causal power."
>
>
> I think the notion of "data having causal power" predates Tilton. Perhaps by
> thousands of years.
That's a metaphor, I mean it. In those cases there was an interesting
agent supplying the animus and adding value to the propagation. The goal
is to eliminate the middleperson -- the interesting agent -- who in our
field is usually a stressed out programmer who starts to crack when the
model reaches even a relatively small size. The trick is to make data
structures work like spreadsheets (lots of prior art there) and to
commit to that mechanism so thoroughly that the programming paradigm
flips inside out and programs function not by code manipulating data,
but simply by program state interacting with other program state.
The title of the Cells talk I hope to give is "It's Alive!". :)
kenny
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Gorbag wrote:
>
> > "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > ························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >>·············@comcast.net wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton
dude?
> >>
> >>McCarthy said, "Let data be code be data." Tilton said, "Let data have
> >>causal power."
> >
> >
> > I think the notion of "data having causal power" predates Tilton.
Perhaps by
> > thousands of years.
>
> That's a metaphor, I mean it. In those cases there was an interesting
> agent supplying the animus and adding value to the propagation. The goal
> is to eliminate the middleperson -- the interesting agent -- who in our
> field is usually a stressed out programmer who starts to crack when the
> model reaches even a relatively small size. The trick is to make data
> structures work like spreadsheets (lots of prior art there) and to
> commit to that mechanism so thoroughly that the programming paradigm
> flips inside out and programs function not by code manipulating data,
> but simply by program state interacting with other program state.
Well, I am not sure what you mean by "data structures working like
spreadsheets" but it sure sounds like constraint propagation. In that case,
the immediate prior art is Constraint Logic Programming, Planning,
Agent-Based Systems, etc. but goes back to the ideas propegated by Licklider
in the founding days of DARPA and echos McCarthy and Minsky in the early
foundations of AI: The knowlege representation is everything, the engine is
just mechanical inference. AKA "Big Crank Theory." Perhaps if you formalize
what you mean it would be more clear?
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <eJifb.5073$pv6.1549@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Gorbag wrote:
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> ························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>>
>>Gorbag wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>·············@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton
>
> dude?
>
>>>>McCarthy said, "Let data be code be data." Tilton said, "Let data have
>>>>causal power."
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the notion of "data having causal power" predates Tilton.
>
> Perhaps by
>
>>>thousands of years.
>>
>>That's a metaphor, I mean it. In those cases there was an interesting
>>agent supplying the animus and adding value to the propagation. The goal
>>is to eliminate the middleperson -- the interesting agent -- who in our
>>field is usually a stressed out programmer who starts to crack when the
>>model reaches even a relatively small size. The trick is to make data
>>structures work like spreadsheets (lots of prior art there) and to
>>commit to that mechanism so thoroughly that the programming paradigm
>>flips inside out and programs function not by code manipulating data,
>>but simply by program state interacting with other program state.
>
>
> Well, I am not sure what you mean by "data structures working like
> spreadsheets" but it sure sounds like constraint propagation.
Yes, that was my "(lots of prior art there)". Steele cited SketchPad
(1962) as the earliest prior art for his constraints language (1980 PhD
thesis). Garnet is very close to Cells (my hack) and COSI is a pretty
recent example.
In that case,
> the immediate prior art is Constraint Logic Programming, Planning,
> Agent-Based Systems, etc. but goes back to the ideas propegated by Licklider
> in the founding days of DARPA and echos McCarthy and Minsky in the early
> foundations of AI: The knowlege representation is everything, the engine is
> just mechanical inference. AKA "Big Crank Theory." Perhaps if you formalize
> what you mean it would be more clear?
Yikes, I am not being modest when I say I am just a simple application
programmer. I like to say I think best in concrete. But constraint
propagation will do, though constraint is the wrong word from where I sit.
I'm just a popularizer of the technology.
kenny
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <xcvr81uf9bi.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Gorbag wrote:
>
> > In that case,
> > the immediate prior art is Constraint Logic Programming, Planning,
> > Agent-Based Systems, etc. but goes back to the ideas propegated by Licklider
> > in the founding days of DARPA and echos McCarthy and Minsky in the early
> > foundations of AI: The knowlege representation is everything, the engine is
> > just mechanical inference. AKA "Big Crank Theory." Perhaps if you formalize
> > what you mean it would be more clear?
>
> Yikes, I am not being modest when I say I am just a simple application
> programmer. I like to say I think best in concrete. But constraint
> propagation will do, though constraint is the wrong word from where I sit.
Don't forget to mention, yours is a monogamous system -- it's one-way
constraints, no orgiastic three- or four-way circular formulas here.
That's why ...
> I'm just a popularizer of the technology.
... instead of a frustrated researcher.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <dulfb.5348$pv6.2059@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>Gorbag wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In that case,
>>>the immediate prior art is Constraint Logic Programming, Planning,
>>>Agent-Based Systems, etc. but goes back to the ideas propegated by Licklider
>>>in the founding days of DARPA and echos McCarthy and Minsky in the early
>>>foundations of AI: The knowlege representation is everything, the engine is
>>>just mechanical inference. AKA "Big Crank Theory." Perhaps if you formalize
>>>what you mean it would be more clear?
>>
>>Yikes, I am not being modest when I say I am just a simple application
>>programmer. I like to say I think best in concrete. But constraint
>>propagation will do, though constraint is the wrong word from where I sit.
>
>
> Don't forget to mention, yours is a monogamous system -- it's one-way
> constraints, no orgiastic three- or four-way circular formulas here.
> That's why ...
>
>
>>I'm just a popularizer of the technology.
>
>
> ... instead of a frustrated researcher.
>
You've been reading my press releases!!!
Yes, I think the multi-way, partial constraints crowd went "a bridge too
far". god bless 'em for reaching for the stars, but giving short shrift
to one-way, deterministic dataflow may have kept that technology from
reaching more hands.
Was Garnet the most popular incarnation of CP? (And, speaking of
multi-way, did Multi-Garnet ever see light of day?) Garnet got
semi-killed when they tried to save it by translating it to C++ (and
renamed it Amulet).)
Can Cells do any better? My advantage may be that I came along just in
time for Lisp's ascendancy once and for all to the throne of language
supremacy.
kt
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <xcvisn5g80z.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> (And, speaking of multi-way, did Multi-Garnet ever see light of
> day?)
Yes, it's still available from the U. Washington's ftp site:
ftp://ftp.cs.washington.edu/pub/constraints/code/multi-garnet/
multi-garnet.lisp is only ~ 1.4k lines of code. Hmmm...
It looks like the head of their Constraints Group worked on Scwm (a
constraints-based window manager for X11, in Scheme), among other
things, before getting distracted from constraints entirely.
> Garnet got semi-killed when they tried to save it by translating it
> to C++ (and renamed it Amulet).)
>
> Can Cells do any better? My advantage may be that I came along just in
> time for Lisp's ascendancy once and for all to the throne of language
> supremacy.
I think Garnet got killed by the AI winter, and everything that meant
for Lisp. So, yeah, the dot-com winter (please let it happen please
let it happen) and the reascendance of Lisp should bode well for you.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
> I think Garnet got killed by the AI winter, and everything that meant
> for Lisp. So, yeah, the dot-com winter (please let it happen please
> let it happen) and the reascendance of Lisp should bode well for you.
>
What the dot.com/UNIX era gave us:
1) Universal networking, instant communications, pervasive computing.
2) Powerful, stable operating systems to compete with the crap coming
out of Redmond and Cupertino.
3) Tons of useful software doing *real* work.
What the AI era gave us:
1) Umm...
There seems to be a trend these days that languages and systems are
getting more and more Lisp-like. Great. Its about time. But don't for
a minute be arrogant enough to believe that the dot.com era didn't
have a purpose, and the world is not better for it. There is a time
and place for everything.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <Ppxfb.8201$pv6.5660@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Rayiner Hashem wrote:
>>I think Garnet got killed by the AI winter, and everything that meant
>>for Lisp. So, yeah, the dot-com winter (please let it happen please
>>let it happen) and the reascendance of Lisp should bode well for you.
>>
>
> What the dot.com/UNIX era gave us:
>
> 1) Universal networking, instant communications, pervasive computing.
> 2) Powerful, stable operating systems to compete with the crap coming
> out of Redmond and Cupertino.
> 3) Tons of useful software doing *real* work.
>
> What the AI era gave us:
> 1) Umm...
...Lisp?
:)
kenny
> > What the AI era gave us:
> > 1) Umm...
>
> ...Lisp?
True. But, c.l.l people (unlike the Scheme people) go out of their way
to cast Common Lisp as a tool, not an end in itself. So, what great
world-changing thing have been written in CL? Looking around at my
desktop, I see tons of great, free (as in freedom) software written in
C and C++, but a single application written in Lisp (cmucl) and that's
a Lisp compiler. Don't get the wrong idea --- my exposure to CL and
Dylan has convinced me that, in the future, real significant software
will be written in these languages, or watared-down versions thereof.
But until then, let's have some perspective, shall we?
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <6vGfb.12664$pv6.2842@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Rayiner Hashem wrote:
>>>What the AI era gave us:
>>>1) Umm...
>>
>>...Lisp?
>
> True. But, c.l.l people (unlike the Scheme people) go out of their way
> to cast Common Lisp as a tool, not an end in itself. So, what great
> world-changing thing have been written in CL?
Well you asked what came out of AI, and the answer is a great language,
the last we'll ever need because it is flexible enough to morph to
paradigms not yet conceived. It probably turned out great because AI
placed a lot of demands on it, so even tho the AI did not happen, a
great tool got developed. It seems like there is a parallel there
between dot coms and benefits you claim came from that bubble (tho those
claims have been questioned, but regardless).
> But until then, let's have some perspective, shall we?
You first. you are the one who has lost the context and now want to talk
about how many people are not programming in what you concede is a fine
language, as opposed to where that fine language came from.
but this is just quibbling. bottom line, you are unhappy that lispniks
are so happy with the language, even when most people use something
else. look, it's a great language and we know it. of course we are
happy. get over it.
kenny
> but this is just quibbling. bottom line, you are unhappy that lispniks
> are so happy with the language, even when most people use something
> else. look, it's a great language and we know it. of course we are
> happy. get over it.
There is a difference between being happy about your language and
making off-topic digs at other people. If I was so peeved that
Lisp-users were happy about their language, I'd write troll-posts
(cross-posted to comp.lang.c++) about how C++ is so great. The only
times I've ever gotten involved in these stupid flame-wars is when
somebody made a comment (CL won, Scheme lost; C++ is the worst
invention in computer science; etc) about something else. You can't
make comments like that and expect people with an interest in those
technologies not to defend them. If people would stop posting
flame-worthy material like that, I'd be happy to sit here and discuss
Lisp...
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <87he2opxpn.fsf@noetbook.telent.net>
·······@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem) writes:
> desktop, I see tons of great, free (as in freedom) software written in
> C and C++, but a single application written in Lisp (cmucl) and that's
I think you've just shifted the goalposts. We were talking about the
benefits of the dot com era, not about desktop applications in
general. How much of the great free software you're looking at was
written during, say, the years 1998-2001, and funded by Valley VC
firms?
Anyway, mileage obviously varies: looking at /my/ desktop I see emacs,
SBCL, sawfish, some xterms and mozilla: C, the mozilla-C++-subset,
Javascript, and three kinds of Lisp. Not quite so monocultural.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <xcvekxsfyxk.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
·······@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem) writes:
> > I think Garnet got killed by the AI winter, and everything that meant
> > for Lisp. So, yeah, the dot-com winter (please let it happen please
> > let it happen) and the reascendance of Lisp should bode well for you.
> >
> What the dot.com/UNIX era gave us:
First of all, Unix is not from the dot-com era. Use your brain[*], it's
a cold-war technology.
> 1) Universal networking, instant communications, pervasive computing.
Cold war.
> 2) Powerful, stable operating systems to compete with the crap coming
> out of Redmond and Cupertino.
??? Okay, I'll bite: what? If you're referring to Linux, please. A
mediocre copy of cold-war era technology is the best you can come up
with? Or maybe you mean *BSD -- oh wait, that was more DARPA work,
wasn't it.
> 3) Tons of useful software doing *real* work.
Such as? *I* see a mess "productivity" applications that have
massively reduced productivity since the late '80s.
> But don't for a minute be arrogant enough to believe that the
> dot.com era didn't have a purpose, and the world is not better for
> it.
Fuck you for calling me arrogant, especially after posting the
arrogant ass bullshit above, in response to an aside.
> There is a time and place for everything.
No, there isn't. Shit like your post is never appropriate.
[*] He says to the troll. If people hadn't responded to this, I never
would have seen it to get upset. I should trust my own filters *sigh*
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <86smm8wkv7.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> ·······@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem) writes:
>
> > > I think Garnet got killed by the AI winter, and everything that meant
> > > for Lisp. So, yeah, the dot-com winter (please let it happen please
> > > let it happen) and the reascendance of Lisp should bode well for you.
> > >
> > What the dot.com/UNIX era gave us:
>
> First of all, Unix is not from the dot-com era. Use your brain[*], it's
> a cold-war technology.
>
> > 1) Universal networking, instant communications, pervasive computing.
>
> Cold war.
>
> > 2) Powerful, stable operating systems to compete with the crap coming
> > out of Redmond and Cupertino.
>
> ??? Okay, I'll bite: what? If you're referring to Linux, please. A
> mediocre copy of cold-war era technology is the best you can come up
> with? Or maybe you mean *BSD -- oh wait, that was more DARPA work,
> wasn't it.
I think he is talking about VAX/VMS.
marc
> First of all, Unix is not from the dot-com era. Use your brain[*], it's
> a cold-war technology.
UNIX was developed during the Cold War, but it is integrally tie to
the dot.com era. It was UNIX (and its simplicity and portabability)
that allowed networking to spread as it did. If you did not mean to
slight UNIX in your post, then consider my statement recanted.
> ??? Okay, I'll bite: what? If you're referring to Linux, please. A
> mediocre copy of cold-war era technology is the best you can come up
> with? Or maybe you mean *BSD -- oh wait, that was more DARPA work,
> wasn't it.
I'm referring to Linux and *BSD, but I'm curious why you consider them
mediocre. By all accounts, the existing free UNIXs are excellent
implementations of the UNIX model. If you've got any particular
complaints, I'd like specific references to algorithms and subsystems
you feel are deficient in either Linux or *BSD. Also, what does being
DARPA work have anything to do with anything?
> Such as? *I* see a mess "productivity" applications that have
> massively reduced productivity since the late '80s.
Lot's of hand-waving. Exactly what applications have "massively
reduced productivity?" I assume you can point to detailed studies that
prove such a reduction. A lot of the impression of reduced
productivity comes from the fact that these tools have allowed a
larger class of users to do tasks traditionally reserved for
highly-skilled people. They are less productive because they lack the
skills that these other users had, not because of their tools.
From: ·············@comcast.net
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <llrz8phs.fsf@comcast.net>
·······@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem) writes:
>> First of all, Unix is not from the dot-com era. Use your brain[*], it's
>> a cold-war technology.
>
> UNIX was developed during the Cold War, but it is integrally tie to
> the dot.com era. It was UNIX (and its simplicity and portabability)
> that allowed networking to spread as it did. If you did not mean to
> slight UNIX in your post, then consider my statement recanted.
You cannot attribute the dot-com era to one single technology.
However, Unix has only a minor claim (if any) to being a fundamental
underpinning to the dot-com boom.
>> ??? Okay, I'll bite: what? If you're referring to Linux, please. A
>> mediocre copy of cold-war era technology is the best you can come up
>> with? Or maybe you mean *BSD -- oh wait, that was more DARPA work,
>> wasn't it.
> I'm referring to Linux and *BSD, but I'm curious why you consider them
> mediocre.
Because they are piss-poor examples of an operating system.
> By all accounts, the existing free UNIXs are excellent
> implementations of the UNIX model.
Yep. No doubt.
> If you've got any particular
> complaints, I'd like specific references to algorithms and subsystems
> you feel are deficient in either Linux or *BSD. Also, what does being
> DARPA work have anything to do with anything?
I'll give you a trivial one: the file system.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but there are operating systems out
there that do not lose information if you simply click off the power.
You don't have to run FSCK on reboot because the disk is *always*
consistent. The technology for this was developed in the late 1960s,
and DARPA paid for it.
More examples: Unix's contribution to networking was UUCP.
Unix didn't talk TCP/IP until circa 1986. The internet had been
around for over fifteen years before that and was developed using
money from DARPA.
From: Rayiner Hashem
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <blqjgl$ndr$1@news-int.gatech.edu>
> You cannot attribute the dot-com era to one single technology.
> However, Unix has only a minor claim (if any) to being a fundamental
> underpinning to the dot-com boom.
I think we're thinking about different things. I'm saying that UNIX was
fundemental to the sssspsrpead of networking and the internet, while you're
talking about the development of the technology.
> Because they are piss-poor examples of an operating system.
Great, thanks for all the details.
> Perhaps you are unaware of this, but there are operating systems out
> there that do not lose information if you simply click off the power.
> You don't have to run FSCK on reboot because the disk is *always*
> consistent. The technology for this was developed in the late 1960s,
> and DARPA paid for it.
a) That has nothing to do with UNIX, and everything to do with the
filesystem. There are no significant modern UNIX OSs without a virtual
filesystem. Lack of data protection is not a weakness of UNIX, but merely a
given implementation of it.
b) UNIX OSs have had journaling (data and metadata) filesystems for a very
long time.
c) The technology to deliver full data journaling without a serious
performance impact has only come around recently. Linux has had full data
journaling since ext3, and reiser4 is a fully atomic filesystem that
performs even better than traditional filesystems.
>
> More examples: Unix's contribution to networking was UUCP.
You say this as if it was a minor detail. UUCP was a fairly general network
communication mechanism that formed the basis for USENET. UUCP has been
around since '76, and was fundendemental in really spreading the use of
networking.
> Unix didn't talk TCP/IP until circa 1986. The internet had been
> around for over fifteen years before that and was developed using
> money from DARPA.
TCP/IP was officially adopted in 1982, and BSD had support in 1983. BSD also
defined the basic network programming model that is widely used today
(sockets) and was the platform on which BIND and the DNS mechanism was
implemented. UNIX played a very large role in the middle to later phases of
the internet's development, and was the major player in the internet world
as it expanded outside the lab.
From: ·············@comcast.net
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <wubj6ngw.fsf@comcast.net>
Rayiner Hashem <·······@mail.gatech.edu> writes:
>> You cannot attribute the dot-com era to one single technology.
>> However, Unix has only a minor claim (if any) to being a fundamental
>> underpinning to the dot-com boom.
>
> I think we're thinking about different things. I'm saying that UNIX was
> fundemental to the sssspsrpead of networking and the internet, while you're
> talking about the development of the technology.
Yes, you do keep saying that. However, it does not change the fact
that the internet was established and spreading before any Unix system
was able to talk to it.
>> Because they are piss-poor examples of an operating system.
> Great, thanks for all the details.
I'm not teaching an OS course. If you want to know about operating
systems, I suggest you start by studying Multics.
>> More examples: Unix's contribution to networking was UUCP.
> You say this as if it was a minor detail.
You misunderstand me --- I say it as an example of a joke.
UUCP is a tad more sophisticated than tin cans and a taut string.
> UUCP was a fairly general network
> communication mechanism that formed the basis for USENET. UUCP has been
> around since '76, and was fundendemental in really spreading the use of
> networking.
UUCP was fundamental in the spreading of Usenet.
>> Unix didn't talk TCP/IP until circa 1986. The internet had been
>> around for over fifteen years before that and was developed using
>> money from DARPA.
>
> TCP/IP was officially adopted in 1982, and BSD had support in 1983. BSD also
> defined the basic network programming model that is widely used today
> (sockets) and was the platform on which BIND and the DNS mechanism was
> implemented.
Jon Postel, Vinton Cerf, and several other people defined the basic
network programming model that is widely used today (sockets). They
didn't design it on Unix for the simple reason that Unix did not exist
at the time. The first DNS system ran on TOPS-20.
From: Rayiner Hashem
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <blt230$e5o$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>
> Yes, you do keep saying that. However, it does not change the fact
> that the internet was established and spreading before any Unix system
> was able to talk to it.
I'm not arguing that the internet was not established before UNIX. I'm
arguing that UNIX deserves a great deal of credit for the rapid spread of
the internet as well as for shaping the way the internet looks today.
> I'm not teaching an OS course. If you want to know about operating
> systems, I suggest you start by studying Multics.
I'm curious what it is about Multics that you think can't be found in UNIX.
Many of the features that Multics is famous for have been gradually adopted
into UNIX over time. For example, you've got UNIX OSs that can by
dynamically reconfigured, have virtual memory, that have B2 security
ratings, etc. Even in the face of these changes, however, UNIX doesn't look
substantially different from how it looked decades ago. Of course, this
argument is on shakey ground to begin with --- we're comparing a specific
implementation of an OS (Multics) to a general OS design (UNIX). The beauty
of UNIX is that all of the features you are talking about can easily be
incorporated into the UNIX model without fundementally changing the design.
Unless you have a feature that doesn't easily fit into the UNIX model,
you're complaint isn't about UNIX, but about a particular implementaton.
Saying something like "the UNIX filesystem doesn't guarantee data
integrity" is like saying "the Lisp garbage collector is slow." Its
meaningless without reference to a specific implementation.
> Jon Postel, Vinton Cerf, and several other people defined the basic
> network programming model that is widely used today (sockets). They
> didn't design it on Unix for the simple reason that Unix did not exist
> at the time. The first DNS system ran on TOPS-20.
My fault. I meant implemented in the sense that it was the implementation
that formed the basis for the Internet as to grew outside of ARPANET. As
far as I can tell, the initial 1982 implementation of DNS was not very
widely used. Again, I'm not crediting UNIX for the technology, but for the
specifics of implementation and forming the backbone of the internet as it
grew.
> First of all, Unix is not from the dot-com era. Use your brain[*], it's
> a cold-war technology.
UNIX was developed during the Cold War, but it is integrally tie to
the dot.com era. It was UNIX (and its simplicity and portabability)
that allowed networking to spread as it did. If you did not mean to
slight UNIX in your post, then consider my statement recanted.
> ??? Okay, I'll bite: what? If you're referring to Linux, please. A
> mediocre copy of cold-war era technology is the best you can come up
> with? Or maybe you mean *BSD -- oh wait, that was more DARPA work,
> wasn't it.
I'm referring to Linux and *BSD, but I'm curious why you consider them
mediocre. By all accounts, the existing free UNIXs are excellent
implementations of the UNIX model. If you've got any particular
complaints, I'd like specific references to algorithms and subsystems
you feel are deficient in either Linux or *BSD. Also, what does being
DARPA work have anything to do with anything?
> Such as? *I* see a mess "productivity" applications that have
> massively reduced productivity since the late '80s.
Lot's of hand-waving. Exactly what applications have "massively
reduced productivity?" I assume you can point to detailed studies that
prove such a reduction. A lot of the impression of reduced
productivity comes from the fact that these tools have allowed a
larger class of users to do tasks traditionally reserved for
highly-skilled people. They are less productive because they lack the
skills that these other users had, not because of their tools.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <ulls1vtnr.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On 3 Oct 2003 23:01:56 -0700, Rayiner Hashem ("Rayiner") writes:
>> I think Garnet got killed by the AI winter, and everything that meant
>> for Lisp. So, yeah, the dot-com winter (please let it happen please
>> let it happen) and the reascendance of Lisp should bode well for you.
>>
Rayiner> What the dot.com/UNIX era gave us:
Rayiner> 1) Universal networking, instant communications, pervasive computing.
Rayiner> 2) Powerful, stable operating systems to compete with the crap coming
Rayiner> out of Redmond and Cupertino.
Rayiner> 3) Tons of useful software doing *real* work.
Rayiner> What the AI era gave us:
Rayiner> 1) Umm...
You are misinformed. The networking you mentioned in (1) was
developed during the AI era, largely as an adjunct to the research
on AI and related areas, and was funded by the US Department of Defense.
Unix was a latecomer to that table, and contributed nothing to it.
(That era also gave us operating systems that were superior to Unix,
which you seem to be offering as the replacement for Microsoft Windows.
Too bad we lost that technology. You can't imagine how painful it is
these days, for those of us who were accustomed to having that technology.)
I don't comprehend your item "Tons of useful software doing *real* work".
Do you suppose no work was done with computers prior to the "dot com era"?
Is that why the dot-com era was such a great success and why we have such
wonderful software now?
You're an unmitigated ignorant idiot troll.
Go fuck yourself somewhere else.
······@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote in message news:<·············@dtpq.com>...
> Too bad we lost that technology. You can't imagine how painful it is
> these days, for those of us who were accustomed to having that technology.)
Sure we can, we've got it worse. You can't imagine what it's like for
those of us who can only /read/ about that technology. How did we
lose that technology, it isn't like the way someone loses change in a
couch. If you consider the sacking of the Alexandrian library to be a
disaster, how should we view the licensing maze that "lost" the AI
technology? Can we not consider the Alexandrian library as a metaphor
for a very common destruction of knowledge?
I mean, I got that Barstow/Shrobe/Sandewall collection of papers about
interactive environments, and it's kinda funny to see how they were
discussing UIs at a much smarter level than you usually hear nowadays.
The smalltalkers and lispers were riffing along with pictures of GUIs
and user models; while the Unix guys lectured about grep, filesystems
and how quality didn't win the day. The one lispish thing in that
book that did survive was Emacs... I suppose the big contribution
from those times is the GPL, a viagra for tech lifespans. And now
inexpensive internet with http (a dotcom era phenomenon) makes it
feasible to develop GPLed software. While the GPL is not a panacea,
at least it spurs increasing pressure for companies to put tech in
some form that doesn't die with bankruptcy. (Which incidentally is an
incentive for a company not to completely kill another -- GPLing
software upon bankruptcy can sometimes have the effect of a Dr.
Strangelove doomsday defense.)
Take it from me, as someone who spent a lot of his day reading about
imploded technologies. You're not as badly off as you claim.
Tayss writes:
> Sure we can, we've got it worse. You can't imagine what it's like for
> those of us who can only /read/ about that technology. How did we
[...]
> I mean, I got that Barstow/Shrobe/Sandewall collection of papers about
> interactive environments, and it's kinda funny to see how they were
> discussing UIs at a much smarter level than you usually hear nowadays.
If you Want a "time machine", you can play with McCLIM. Here are a few
screen shots:
http://bauhh.dyndns.org:8000/mcclim/screenshots/
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote in message news:<··············@plato.moon.paoloamoroso.it>...
> If you Want a "time machine", you can play with McCLIM. Here are a few
> screen shots:
>
> http://bauhh.dyndns.org:8000/mcclim/screenshots/
Are these different images than
http://clim.mikemac.com/images/index.html ? The dyndns.org site has
been down since yesterday.
Tayss writes:
> Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote in message news:<··············@plato.moon.paoloamoroso.it>...
[...]
>> http://bauhh.dyndns.org:8000/mcclim/screenshots/
>
> Are these different images than
> http://clim.mikemac.com/images/index.html ? The dyndns.org site has
> been down since yesterday.
I can't remember exactly, but I think there are a few more. I confirm
the dyndns.org access problems.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
Paolo Amoroso writes:
> I can't remember exactly, but I think there are a few more. I confirm
> the dyndns.org access problems.
The site is now accessible again.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
Does anyone know of a decent open source lisp interpreter/compiler that works
in netbsd on alpha? gcl 'almost' compiles, and it supports linux and osf1 on
alpha... has anyone else already ported it to netbsd? the last time i tried
clisp it also bombed during compilation..
isildur
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <3F7DB882.3060001@cs.nyu.edu>
·············@comcast.net wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>OK, if you are gracious enough to admit that, I will admit that I have
>>also posited that the price is too high. OTOH, you seem not to grok
>>that you can grab a day for $200. McCarthy is penciled in for
>>Wednesday, along with some clown named Tilton.
>
>
> I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton dude?
Yeah right! I payed for the whole thing and I will get to see this
Tilton dude. What a scam. I could just get the guy out for a beer for
much less :)
Cheers
--
Marco
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <Vyjfb.5319$pv6.3643@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>
>
> ·············@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> OK, if you are gracious enough to admit that, I will admit that I have
>>> also posited that the price is too high. OTOH, you seem not to grok
>>> that you can grab a day for $200. McCarthy is penciled in for
>>> Wednesday, along with some clown named Tilton.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can see $200 bucks for McCarthy, but who the hell is this Tilton dude?
>
>
> Yeah right! I payed for the whole thing and I will get to see this
> Tilton dude. What a scam. I could just get the guy out for a beer for
> much less :)
$200 is the price for seeing me sober. :)
stream
"-----~2%~
~{~&~1&~
~[~^~:;~
·····@(~
~R~) bo~
ttle~:P o~
f beer on t~
he wall~01:*~[.~
~:;,·······@(~R~
~) bottle~:*~P ~
of beer.~%You t~
ake one down, p~
ass it around, ~
~01%~[*No* more~
·········@(~R~)~
~] bottle~:*~P ~
of beer on the ~
wall.~2&-----~%~
~1%~:*~]~]~}~0%"
Grace a:
http://99-bottles-of-beer.ls-la.net/c.html#Common-Lisp-(format-string)
kenny
From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <sqbrsy9ird.fsf@lambda.jcn.srcf.net>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> "-----~2%~
> ~{~&~1&~
> ~[~^~:;~
> ·····@(~
> ~R~) bo~
> ttle~:P o~
> f beer on t~
> he wall~01:*~[.~ <-- here
> ~:;,·······@(~R~
> ~) bottle~:*~P ~
> of beer.~%You t~
> ake one down, p~
> ass it around, ~
> ~01%~[*No* more~
> ·········@(~R~)~ <-- here
> ~] bottle~:*~P ~
> of beer on the ~
> wall.~2&-----~%~
> ~1%~:*~]~]~}~0%"
Compare and contrast ~:01* and ~01:*. Only one is legal. Shootout at
dawn.
> Grace a:
>
> http://99-bottles-of-beer.ls-la.net/c.html#Common-Lisp-(format-string)
Christophe "no, it's not a bug in SBCL" :-)
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> well, as one who spends a lot of time trashing free CLs, look, if you
> are using Unix you already take for granted a lot of the crap that
> pisses me off. So stop whining, grab a Lisp and Emacs and do
> something. You'll have so much fun out of the box that the crap won't
> matter much. Either that or you are not really a programmer.
Sounds like someone (ok, maybe not the original poster, who I think
was using a SPARC of some sort) might be a potential customer for the
cirCLe CD.
"What's the cirCLe CD, Daniel?"
Did I not mention it already? Glad you asked.
It's a complete free Common Lisp system for x86 Linux, tailored for
web applications. Based on the Steel Bank Common Lisp compiler, cirCLe
features out-of-the-box Emacs integration, native threads, a
programmable Web server, database libraries, regular expressions, and
so on. It's also bootable, for those occasions where you want to
demonstrate or evaluate it without installing anything on the hard
disk.
* Please read the important note below *
Important note: it's also /vapourware/. I'm engaged in a market
research effort to determine if it's worth spending the time to
put it together : if you'd like to know more, see
http://web.metacircles.com/cirCLe+CD
There's a mailing list you can sign up to as well.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:37:14 +0100, Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net>
wrote:
>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> well, as one who spends a lot of time trashing free CLs, look, if you
>> are using Unix you already take for granted a lot of the crap that
>> pisses me off. So stop whining, grab a Lisp and Emacs and do
>> something. You'll have so much fun out of the box that the crap won't
>> matter much. Either that or you are not really a programmer.
>
>Sounds like someone (ok, maybe not the original poster, who I think
>was using a SPARC of some sort) might be a potential customer for the
>cirCLe CD.
>
>"What's the cirCLe CD, Daniel?"
>
>Did I not mention it already? Glad you asked.
>
>It's a complete free Common Lisp system for x86 Linux, tailored for
>web applications. Based on the Steel Bank Common Lisp compiler, cirCLe
>features out-of-the-box Emacs integration, native threads, a
>programmable Web server, database libraries, regular expressions, and
>so on. It's also bootable, for those occasions where you want to
>demonstrate or evaluate it without installing anything on the hard
>disk.
>
> * Please read the important note below *
>
>Important note: it's also /vapourware/. I'm engaged in a market
>research effort to determine if it's worth spending the time to
>put it together : if you'd like to know more, see
>
> http://web.metacircles.com/cirCLe+CD
>
>There's a mailing list you can sign up to as well.
>
>
>-dan
I would personally use it quite a bit. I am very interested in a good
open source web development system based on Lisp.
If you need any help with this please let me know (assuming you decide
to do it).
Doug Tolton
(format t ···@~a~a.~a" "dtolton" "ya" "hoo" "com")
·······@panix.com (David Combs) wrote in message news:<············@panix1.panix.com>...
> I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
> walk in the door, plus some $200 per day just to
> listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
> for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
As I understand, they're publishing the vids of speeches through
Springer. (If they don't pack in lots of video of things like Q&A and
pre/post-speech banter, I will be so pissed. At least they could
segment the market by charging more for bonus stuff: a "commemorative"
package with extra video, tshirt, poster, etc.)
But the prices you mention are reasonable... part of it is that you
need to charge a bit so people value it. Many speakers employ this
tactic in order to have more effective speeches and workshops. Now,
this probably applies more to businesspeople than programmers, but
you'll notice how successful Paul Graham's articles about making money
have been.
But again, as long as they're coming out with decent videos of the
event, the pricing seems reasonable. Otherwise it would just be mean
and stingy... astonishingly self-defeating too.
··········@yahoo.com (Tayss) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> As I understand, they're publishing the vids of speeches through
> Springer.
Um, actually let me take that back. I can't find the post by de
Lacaze saying this, and perhaps when he talked about the Proceedings
being published, I might have falsely assumed he was talking about the
video as well.
I just mailed him. His hotmail acct is busted, hopefully the alu.org
one isn't. But of course he sounds like an insanely busy guy...
It does actually worry me. It is not clear there is an incentive for
the camerawork to be competent. So I guess it's absolutely justified
to complain about the entry price. Too bad, people like buying
videos, and I enjoy having a lecture up in the corner of my screen
while I'm working.
David Combs writes:
> I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
> walk in the door, plus some $200 per day just to
> listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
> for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
At $60 + shipping you can purchase the ILC 2002 proceedings, and I
guess you will have a similar opportunity for ILC 2003. You get a
thick, telephone directory size volume and a CD with machine-reabable
versions of the papers and slides. It is stuffed with a lot of ideas
and material that will keep you busy for years.
> And I'm merely a "lurker" in the lisp world, fascinated
> by all the cool things that have made their way into
> general computer-sci, only thanks to original idea
> via lisp community.
For the record, I have been interested in Lisp for the past 13
years. I started with your same enthusiasm, and never lost it. Yet I
have never been at a Lisp conference, and I'm not going to do anytime
soon. And over those years I have personally met only 1 (one) lisper.
> hear (here in this group) mainly bad things about the
> freebie systems, eg cmu-lisp, and anything decent seemingly
Which bad things?
> Likewise for this conference; seems like the software
> companies would find it in their interest to subsidize
> the conf, to maybe help increase their market?
What do you mean? Lisp vendors are among the sponsors of most, if not
all, Lisp conferences and events.
> Anyway, I'm just bitching. No discounts; am not an (enrolled) "student"
> (am 3x the age for usual student), but am merely *extremely*
> interested in the language, its new directions, clever
> tricks, etc. (Yes, I already have all the books.)
Have you already checked the abundant online material?
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote in message news:<··············@plato.moon.paoloamoroso.it>...
> David Combs writes:
>
> > And I'm merely a "lurker" in the lisp world, fascinated
> > by all the cool things that have made their way into
> > general computer-sci, only thanks to original idea
> > via lisp community.
>
> For the record, I have been interested in Lisp for the past 13
> years. I started with your same enthusiasm, and never lost it. Yet I
> have never been at a Lisp conference, and I'm not going to do anytime
> soon. And over those years I have personally met only 1 (one) lisper.
Nothing wrong with that, but if one can make it to a conference like
ILC they should. I think one reason I hang out on cll so much is
because I remember the people behind the words from LUGM '99 and ILC
2002. Most of all I picked up a lot of energy at 2002. Talks schmalks.
I can only relate to a few, but even if I have no connection to the
topic of the talk, it's great to hear about Lisp in action and meet
the person giving the talk.
Lisp is too good to disappear, but if we want to grow the thing faster
so we can have jobs in it sooner (and imagine how much we happy few
will be able to bill for our services when we are the only one who
know the language <g>), then we should be at ILC. We need to feed off
each other's energy, just as I hope we and newcomers will off this
growing list (thx, btw, to the many recent contributors for some
especially good "Roads"):
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey
OK, back to TeamKenny. My highly trained goalie, once in a game
situation, suddenly treats his goal the way Oakland runners treat home
plate (with fear and loathing). Hmmm...
kenny "The Steel Bunny" Tilton
From: Bernhard Pfahringer
Subject: Re: nyc lisp conf: WAY too expensive! (4me) How to *turn-away* lisp-interest!
Date:
Message-ID: <blshmb$rt8$1@ligeti.ai.univie.ac.at>
In article <··············@plato.moon.paoloamoroso.it>,
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote:
>David Combs writes:
>
>> I go and look at the conf-site -- $700+ just to
>> walk in the door, plus some $200 per day just to
>> listen, and probably (I forget) something similar
>> for each tutorial (tutorial-day?).
>
>At $60 + shipping you can purchase the ILC 2002 proceedings, and I
>guess you will have a similar opportunity for ILC 2003. You get a
>thick, telephone directory size volume and a CD with machine-reabable
>versions of the papers and slides. It is stuffed with a lot of ideas
>and material that will keep you busy for years.
>
>
Well, personally I'd love to go to ILC 2003, but it is simply
too expensive. I am just back from a scientific conference
in the main area of my research (machine learning) which took
place in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The conference fee was 320 Euros,
which bought you 5 days alltogether: 2 days of workshops and
tutorials, and 3 days with 3 parallel sessions of paper
presentations. Also included: 2 volumes of proceedings with
40 papers each. Workshop notes and tutorials are all online,
for a total of 15 Euros you could get them all on CD.
Most other conferences I have attended during the last five
years were also in this 300-400 Euro/US$ range. This is what
I can justify going to without giving a presentation.
So I guess it'll just be the proceedings for me
cheers, Bernhard