Hi everyone!!!
I'm new in LISP, and i want your advice.
I need to build a othello game (work for scholl). Where can a begin to
search for some good LISP manuals??
I'm working with EMACS for windows
thanks in advance
Tiago Costa (Portugal - The land of EURO 2004)
Tiago Costa wrote:
> Hi everyone!!!
>
> I'm new in LISP, and i want your advice.
>
> I need to build a othello game (work for scholl). Where can a begin to
> search for some good LISP manuals??
>
The canonical (according to #lisp) newbie guide is at
http://www.unmutual.info/startingwithcl.html
I especially recommend Practical Common Lisp; it's a great book for
beginners.
> I'm working with EMACS for windows
>
Emacs and... which Lisp? Surely not Elisp?
If it is, be aware that Elisp is a multiple-decades-old implementation of
Lisp that is *far* behind the state of the art. I highly recommend you get
a Common Lisp implementation, which the guide will explain how to get.
Also, be aware that - although you *can* use Lisp under Windows - the guide
really isn't kidding when it says that Linux, OS X, and other unices have
by far the better support.
Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
>
> Also, be aware that - although you *can* use Lisp under Windows - the guide
> really isn't kidding when it says that Linux, OS X, and other unices have
> by far the better support.
Rubbish. Xanalys LispWorks supports Windows just fine. In fact, given that
both Franz and Xanalys commercial offerings support native threads on
Windows but not on Unix, you could argue that they support Windows better.
Oh, and if you want a simple Othello program, LispWorks has it as one of its
examples..
Barry.
Barry Wilkes <·······@acm.org> writes:
> Rubbish. Xanalys LispWorks supports Windows just fine. In fact, given that
> both Franz and Xanalys commercial offerings support native threads on
> Windows but not on Unix, you could argue that they support Windows better.
Do these threads run Lisp code concurrently, or is it serialized like
in OCaml and Python?
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <······@knm.org.pl> writes:
> Barry Wilkes <·······@acm.org> writes:
>
>> Rubbish. Xanalys LispWorks supports Windows just fine. In fact, given that
>> both Franz and Xanalys commercial offerings support native threads on
>> Windows but not on Unix, you could argue that they support Windows better.
>
> Do these threads run Lisp code concurrently, or is it serialized like
> in OCaml and Python?
As I said, they support native (Win32) threads. So, if you have a
multiprocessor box, they can run concurrently.
Barry.
Barry Wilkes wrote:
> Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
>>
>> Also, be aware that - although you *can* use Lisp under Windows - the
>> guide really isn't kidding when it says that Linux, OS X, and other
>> unices have by far the better support.
>
> Rubbish. Xanalys LispWorks supports Windows just fine. In fact, given
> that both Franz and Xanalys commercial offerings support native threads on
> Windows but not on Unix, you could argue that they support Windows better.
>
> Oh, and if you want a simple Othello program, LispWorks has it as one of
> its examples..
>
Seeing as he's a student, I was kinda assuming that he wouldn't want to pay
$1K for a Lispworks license, so I was limiting myself to Free lisps.
Although... I suppose the trial edition could work out pretty well if used
with Slime. I haven't tried it, not having a Windows machine around.
Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
> Barry Wilkes wrote:
>
>> Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
> Seeing as he's a student, I was kinda assuming that he wouldn't want to pay
> $1K for a Lispworks license, so I was limiting myself to Free lisps.
>
> Although... I suppose the trial edition could work out pretty well if used
> with Slime. I haven't tried it, not having a Windows machine around.
I can think of no reason why you would want to use Slime with it. Slime is
fine, but really, it doesn't compare with the integrated environment of
LispWorks on Windows - or Linux for that matter. IMHO.
Barry.
In article <············@acm.org>, Barry Wilkes <·······@acm.org> wrote:
> I can think of no reason why you would want to use Slime with it. Slime is
> fine, but really, it doesn't compare with the integrated environment of
> LispWorks on Windows - or Linux for that matter. IMHO.
I like all the nifty browsers in LispWorks, but really I don't use them
that often. For basic editing/evaluating/compiling stuff, I find Emacs
+ Slime better than the LispWorks IDE.
The reasons for this are mostly that GNU Emacs is a lot more featureful
editor than the hacked-up Hemlock in LW, and it'd take me a long time to
add those features to the LW editor (and since the trial version doesn't
support initfiles, I'd have to manually load my patches each time I
start it). Also, some of Slime's design decisions seem to operate more
smoothly for me than LW.
In particular, LW's symbol completion is painful after using Emacs +
Slime for me. It's not as featureful than many of the Slime completion
algorithms, and the fact that it pops up a dialog to select which
prevents continued typing is extremely bad compared to how Emacs handles
it. Also, on Mac OS X the annoying sheet slide time makes completion
slow because completion invokes a sheet.
If I were using LW to make lots of money it'd probably be worth it to
add all this stuff to it, but I don't.
[To be fair, I wrote one of the Slime completors, so I'm rather biased.]
-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing <bdowning at lavos dot net>
Brian Downing <·············@lavos.net> writes:
> In article <············@acm.org>, Barry Wilkes <·······@acm.org> wrote:
>> I can think of no reason why you would want to use Slime with it. Slime is
>> fine, but really, it doesn't compare with the integrated environment of
>> LispWorks on Windows - or Linux for that matter. IMHO.
>
> I like all the nifty browsers in LispWorks, but really I don't use them
> that often. For basic editing/evaluating/compiling stuff, I find Emacs
> + Slime better than the LispWorks IDE.
>
> The reasons for this are mostly that GNU Emacs is a lot more featureful
> editor than the hacked-up Hemlock in LW, and it'd take me a long time to
> add those features to the LW editor (and since the trial version doesn't
> support initfiles, I'd have to manually load my patches each time I
> start it). Also, some of Slime's design decisions seem to operate more
> smoothly for me than LW.
>
> In particular, LW's symbol completion is painful after using Emacs +
> Slime for me. It's not as featureful than many of the Slime completion
> algorithms, and the fact that it pops up a dialog to select which
> prevents continued typing is extremely bad compared to how Emacs handles
> it. Also, on Mac OS X the annoying sheet slide time makes completion
> slow because completion invokes a sheet.
>
> If I were using LW to make lots of money it'd probably be worth it to
> add all this stuff to it, but I don't.
>
> [To be fair, I wrote one of the Slime completors, so I'm rather biased.]
Well, each to his own - and I'd be the first to admit that development
environments are very much personal choices. And if you make the investment
of time necessacery to learn how to use an environment well, then using
another can be frustating. I know that's how I feel when I try and use Slime -
yes, I can, but I keep missing things from LispWorks. Like the inspector, or
the Object clipboard, or the debugger, or the function call browser, or the
process browser, or the compilation conditions browser. And yes, I do have
quite a few customisations to the editor. And yes, it would annoy the hell
out of me if I couldn't have them loaded automatically from my ~/.lispworks
file.
Barry.
Barry Wilkes wrote:
> Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
>
>> Barry Wilkes wrote:
>>
>>> Svein Ove Aas <·········@aas.no> writes:
>> Seeing as he's a student, I was kinda assuming that he wouldn't want to
>> pay $1K for a Lispworks license, so I was limiting myself to Free lisps.
>>
>> Although... I suppose the trial edition could work out pretty well if
>> used with Slime. I haven't tried it, not having a Windows machine around.
>
> I can think of no reason why you would want to use Slime with it. Slime
> is fine, but really, it doesn't compare with the integrated environment of
> LispWorks on Windows - or Linux for that matter. IMHO.
>
Too many windows for me. Using the mouse is an expensive operation on my
laptop, so I usually avoid it. I suppose that's configurable somewhere,
though.
No, my major issue with it is the heap size limit, which hardly matters for
Othello. Then there's the time limit, and the lack of CLIM support, but you
can probably use McClim.
None of these are serious issues for a newbie, I suppose.
"Tiago Costa" <·····@aaaa.pt> writes:
> Hi everyone!!!
Hi.
> I'm new in LISP, and i want your advice.
> I need to build a othello game (work for scholl).
Google for 'PAIP' by Peter Norvig.
Chapter 18: 'Search and the Game of Othello'.
> Where can a begin to search for some good LISP manuals??
[ http://www.cliki.net ]
==> [ http://www.cliki.net/Online%20Tutorial ]
====> (for example) [ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ ]
.
"Tiago Costa" <·····@aaaa.pt> writes:
> Hi everyone!!!
>
> I'm new in LISP, and i want your advice.
>
> I need to build a othello game (work for scholl).
> Where can a begin to search for some good LISP manuals??
>
> I'm working with EMACS for windows
The three most popular Lisp languages in use today are:
Common Lisp (the ANSI standard, "industrial-strength" Lisp),
Scheme (developed largely for pedagogical purposes),
and ELisp (the editor command extension language for
the Emacs editor). Each of these languages are very
different from one another, even though they all share
a few things in common. When someone just says "Lisp",
we tend to assume that you mean Common Lisp.
There are many different implementations of Common Lisp
and Scheme. The commercial Common Lisp offerings may be
the easiest to install and use, and they have no-cost
student "evaluation" editions suitable for your homework.
To program in Common Lisp, you will obviously need to
obtain some Common Lisp system.
The best editor to use for preparing source code for any of
those Lisp languages is Emacs. (That is, to develop your
Common Lisp code, you would be using an editor that happens
to be written in ELisp. You do not need to actually be
aware that Emacs is itself written in Lisp, however.)
GNU Emacs also has an IDE called "Slime" for working with
your selected Common Lisp system. Some Common Lisp systems
include their own kind of Emacs editor as part of an IDE,
which you would probably want to use instead of GNU Emacs.
The standard reference for Common Lisp is the "Hyperspec",
a web document that was derived from the ANSI standard.
My person recommendation would be for you to download
the no-cost ("Personal Edition") of Xanalys Lispworks.
You would use their IDE (rather than GNU Emacs).
Lispworks installs easily on all operating systems and
includes the Hyperspec. You can download Lispworks from
http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/lw-personal-edition.html
Some advice: When you get to the point of asking for specific
help with homework, please identify it as such, and present
your work so far, and people will be more likley to help you.
To satisfy our curiousity about newbies, can you please tell us
what school you're at, which course you are using Lisp for,
and what materials they are providing to you for this purpose?
Have fun!