Hey there fellow Lispers,
I have some somewhat strange dilemmas on my hands, I'm a uni student
studying Computer Science with Games Dev, and a few months ago I
started programming Lisp. Through attending lectures about C#, I
realised that there are alot of benefits in using Lisp over C#.
One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
from the idea. So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
know the language. Feeling compelled to prove one my lecturers wrong,
I sent him some franz links to show how Lisp has had some success, but
he never answered the e-mail.
Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
better technology, yet no one ever listens.
!
> I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
> ...
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
Do not advocate it unless want
BG to create LISP#
--
A
.
Edward Tate wrote:
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that
I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
I've wondered this myself, and I've come to learn that CS is
fundamentally corrupted. Dick Feynman explains how long it took
physicists to learn honesty, and thereby be a real science:
"But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves--of having
utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we
haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of.
We just hope you've caught on by osmosis... So I have just one wish
for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain
the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel
forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or
financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that
freedom." http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html
Computer "science" people rather take on the trappings of scientists
they see on TV -- stuffed shirts making weighty pronouncements. With
faith in tech darwinism:
"In short, the concepts of "economic viability" and "technical
viability" are not really economic or technical categories at all -- as
our ideological inheritance suggest -- but political and cultural
categories."
http://www.nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?DavidNoble/ForcesOfProduction
I believe the need to advocate is an interesting impulse that is
exaggerated in us, since we're literally used to lying "evangelists"
who glibly push their tools without giving a damn about our actual
problems. However, there are many meat & potatoes things within Lisp
which solve people's problems, and it's convenient to say, "Well here's
a good idea from Lisp which solves that problem, so you could maybe
pressure your language designer to include it in a future version..."
"And you're right: we were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we
were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about
halfway to Lisp. Aren't you happy?" -- Guy Steele, Java language
specification co-author
And hey, if computer "scientists" like their Britney-and-McD's tools,
let them be. They're commissars, and their role is to authoritatively
repeat things without knowing what they're talking about.
MfG,
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Edward Tate wrote:
> > Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny*
> > that I program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be
> > shit". This kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So
> > what is it about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always
> > end up arguing with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I
> > prevent getting into flamewars anytime I mention it? It's
> > irritating in itself because I feel the need to advocate it, as
> > one would if one was faced with a better technology, yet no one
> > ever listens.
>
> I've wondered this myself, and I've come to learn that CS is
> fundamentally corrupted.
Recent threads brought me to consider the other side -- how did Lisp
users fuck it all up? After all, Lisp/AI guys did have the enormous
benefit of government pork through the Cold War.
For one thing, the technologies Lisp was deployed on were too costly to
survive free market discipline. (Where performance/price rather than
absolute performance is more valuable.) Such as the Connection Machine,
with its ~64000 processors. So they could survive while bathing in
Pentagon corporate welfare, but didn't solve enough important,
lucrative problems.
This doesn't mean it was bad technology; to the contrary. A billion
dollars would likely produce the world's best pizza. Still, it was a
boondoggle.
Also, the academics founding these Lisp/AI companies were incompetent
at business. From Richard Gabriel's Patterns of Software:
"The AI companies were founded almost exclusively by AI faculty from
universities -- MIT, Stanford, CMU, USC, for example. Academics have an
interesting view of business: They equate business with war. A company
wins because other companies lose -- a classic misunderstanding of
evolution (see my later essay 'Money Through Innovation Reconsidered').
A company keeps everything a secret. A company tries to spy on other
companies. A company cannot trust anyone not part of themselves."
http://dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf
Kent Pitman of Symbolics blamed a foolish real estate deal for
Symbolics's demise -- more evidence of incompetent business.
(We see the aftereffects even today in the Lisp community. An
entertainingly high tendency for secrecy, even in "Lisp User"
organizations. Further, it is like the Middle East, where much of the
population is said to have a sense of lost past glories. This probably
helps explain the confrontational nature of a significant amount of
long-time Lisp users, who expect their pet tool to be put on a pedestal
without question.)
There was a book (Interactive Programming Environments) showing off a
number of Smalltalk and Lisp technologies. The two survivors were Unix
and Emacs -- both inexpensive systems licensingwise, with sourcecode
available either legally or illegally. Invulnerable to management
foolishness. Another implementation which survived is Franz, which
based its product on a popular opensource Lisp.
Now, do I think this is a strike against Lisp? No; like many other
failed technologies, it can be repurposed towards incredible ends.
Particularly if people from other programming cultures may bring in
unexpected, disruptive innovations from left field. Lisp appears to
have weaknesses in its code-is-data, which other tools may supercede.
(These weaknesses are only obscured since Lisp still has the best
handling I'm currently aware of.)
MfG,
Tayssir
Up spake Tayssir John Gabbour:
> Academics have an interesting view of business: They equate business
> with war.
It's true. I'm an academic, and I really can't distinguish between
warfare, politics and business. At least Clausewitz was in accord on
the former two: "war is a continuation of policy by other means".
Of course, this:
> A company wins because other companies lose -- a classic
> misunderstanding of evolution
...is not a valid conclusion of any form of conflict, except total war.
--
-trent
Stop the room, please, I'd like to get off.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:28:43 +0000, Trent Buck wrote:
> Up spake Tayssir John Gabbour:
>> Academics have an interesting view of business: They equate business
>> with war.
>
> It's true. I'm an academic, and I really can't distinguish between
> warfare, politics and business.
In business, there really is a possibility for *everyone* to win (at
least over certain timescales). OK, it virtually never happens, but it is
at least possible.
Cheers,
Bill.
William Bland <·······@abstractnonsense.com> writes:
> In business, there really is a possibility for *everyone* to win (at
> least over certain timescales). OK, it virtually never happens, but it is
> at least possible.
It's at least an effect localized to the customers and suppliers of that
company. The ones who tend to lose are the ones providing the same
product or service to the same customers. But all the customers and
suppliers would be guaranteed to not win if that were not the case.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
William Bland wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:28:43 +0000, Trent Buck wrote:
>
>
>>Up spake Tayssir John Gabbour:
>>
>>>Academics have an interesting view of business: They equate business
>>>with war.
>>
>>It's true. I'm an academic, and I really can't distinguish between
>>warfare, politics and business.
>
>
> In business, there really is a possibility for *everyone* to win (at
> least over certain timescales). OK, it virtually never happens, but it is
> at least possible.
>
It is however, eminently possible, and happens all the time,
that competitors enter into situations where there are in
the end more winners than losers.
A dozen businesses all competing for the business of a
relatively spread-out ethnically asian community in a
major american city, for example, may all profit by building
a mall to move into, concentrating their market and creating
a natural "center" for the community they serve.
And a dozen Lisp vendors each with proprietary technology
and their own dialect of Lisp could have mutually profited,
had they done it in time, by creating Common Lisp to concentrate
their market.
Bear
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> For one thing, the technologies Lisp was deployed on were too costly to
> survive free market discipline. (Where performance/price rather than
> absolute performance is more valuable.) Such as the Connection Machine,
> with its ~64000 processors. So they could survive while bathing in
> Pentagon corporate welfare, but didn't solve enough important,
> lucrative problems.
The failure of the leading Lisp company, Symbolics, was arguably
not largely related to technology decisions. Bad real estate
deals played and poor marketing were major culprits.
Practically all companies that used Lisp Machines had great
success with them.
The Connection Machine was not a Lisp Machine; it was mostly
programmed in a version of FORTRAN, I think. All the competing
massively parallel computer companies also went out of business.
Few people needed these machines, and nobody could really
figure out how to program them.
> Now, do I think this is a strike against Lisp? No; like many other
> failed technologies, it can be repurposed towards incredible ends.
I don't know what you mean by suggesting that Lisp "failed".
It is a technology that has been, and continues to be, very
successfully used in all kinds of areas,
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:01:03 GMT, ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C.
Stacy) wrote:
>
>The Connection Machine was not a Lisp Machine; it was mostly
>programmed in a version of FORTRAN, I think.
It started out being programmed in parallel Lisp, using Symbolics
machines
as hosts. Then a parallel 'C' language was developed; then a compiler
was developed to translate Fortran into CM assembler.
I suspect you are correct -- eventually most applications were done
using the Fortran compiler.
> All the competing
>massively parallel computer companies also went out of business.
I'm not sure about this; but it is probably essentially true.
>Few people needed these machines, and nobody could really
>figure out how to program them.
Well, that's certainly not true. The problem was that it was
difficult to take existing code and algorithms and have them run
efficiently on a parallel architecture. People, myself included, knew
very well how to translate serial algorithms into efficient parallel
algorithms.
It's just that when you have a 1,000,000 line piece of Fortran code
doing A-bomb simulations written in 1960 that no one understands
any more it's almost impossible to get it run on a parallel
architecture, but that's where the biggest potential market was.
JP Massar <······@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >Few people needed these machines, and nobody could really
> >figure out how to program them.
>
> Well, that's certainly not true.
Weren't you at TMC? I was at the AI Lab. What I remember
is a lot of thesis coming out around that time from people
who were trying to figure out how to design and program
various kinds of parallel computers. Parallel computing
is not my field, but I hope some progress has been made
in the last 20 years.
(By the way, do you know anything about how the KSR machine worked?
That one always sounded pretty interesting, but I never got
the details on it, before they too, went bankrupt around
the same time. I am pretty sure it didn't use Lisp.)
Regarding the parallel computing market in the mid 1980s,
I maintain that there were very few customers who actually
needed such a computer, knew they needed it, knew what to
do with it, and could afford the immense price tag.
I believe that this is the main reason that TMC failed,
and of course this had nothing to do with Lisp.
Further, I believe that this is still the case.
There are less than half a dozen supercomputer parallel
machines in the world today that are comparable (in terms
of their technology relative to the surrounding technology)
to what the Connection Machine was back at that time.
In the next two paragraph you admit that it was "difficult",
that only a few people had a clue, and that automatic program
translation (which is what was really required to do the job)
was (and probably remains) an unsolved problem.
> The problem was that it was difficult to take existing code and
> algorithms and have them run efficiently on a parallel architecture.
> People, myself included, knew very well how to translate serial
> algorithms into efficient parallel algorithms.
> It's just that when you have a 1,000,000 line piece of Fortran code
> doing A-bomb simulations written in 1960 that no one understands
> any more it's almost impossible to get it run on a parallel
> architecture, but that's where the biggest potential market was.
I don't think we're substantively disagreeing here.
I was responding to the argument that Lisp is a "failure" and
the supporting evidence that the Connection Machine was a failure.
My point is that Lisp, per se, didn't have anything to do with the
Connection Machine. Most customers programmed in Fortran, not *Lisp.
Certainly the fact that the original CM had a Lisp Machine for a
front-end control console and cross-development environment is
quite irrelevent. Rather, it suggests that Lisp was a "winner",
having been selected for that application. When Lisp Machines
were out of favor, later versions of the CM used SUN workstations
as the front-end machine (not to mention SPARC chips as the
paralllel processing elements).
Lisp had nothing to do with the failure of Thinking Machines.
However, Lisp had lots to do with the success there, specifically
in the creation of the underlying technology.
Lisp was the scapegoat of insane business practices, major
economic changes, and everything else no matter how vaugely
tangentally related to AI Winter. And newbies reading this stuff
(those who were not professionally involved back in those decades)
should also bear in mind that the business world of computers
is a completely different landscape now than it was back then.
Lisp did not fail. Some business, mostly run by people who
were incompetent (which is standard) are what failed.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> Lisp was the scapegoat of insane business practices, major
> economic changes, and everything else no matter how vaugely
> tangentally related to AI Winter.
I commented to someone today that the whole UML thing is looking
like what AI when through with Knowledge Representation. We
agreed it was too bad there aren't lisp machines makers around --
the machines would be a natural for 'modeling workstations'.
Of course, they can't *call it* KR.
Paul
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:32:18 GMT, ······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C.
Stacy) wrote:
>JP Massar <······@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> >Few people needed these machines, and nobody could really
>> >figure out how to program them.
>>
>> Well, that's certainly not true.
>
>Weren't you at TMC?
Yes.
> I was at the AI Lab. What I remember
>is a lot of thesis coming out around that time from people
>who were trying to figure out how to design and program
>various kinds of parallel computers.
Indeed.
> Parallel computing
>is not my field, but I hope some progress has been made
>in the last 20 years.
I haven't kept up, but my impression is not.
>
>(By the way, do you know anything about how the KSR machine worked?
No, sorry.
>That one always sounded pretty interesting, but I never got
>the details on it, before they too, went bankrupt around
>the same time. I am pretty sure it didn't use Lisp.)
>
>Regarding the parallel computing market in the mid 1980s,
>I maintain that there were very few customers who actually
>needed such a computer, knew they needed it, knew what to
>do with it, and could afford the immense price tag.
>I believe that this is the main reason that TMC failed,
>and of course this had nothing to do with Lisp.
Well, TMC didn't fail in the mid 80's, it failed circa 1994.
Otherwise, your analysis is reasonable.
One of the standard reasons given that TMC failed was that
the Cold War ended and the DoD and related budgets got cut.
Lots of CM's had gone to various government labs and agencies
that don't exist, if you get my drift.
It never turned out to be commericially viable.
>
>Further, I believe that this is still the case.
>There are less than half a dozen supercomputer parallel
>machines in the world today that are comparable (in terms
>of their technology relative to the surrounding technology)
>to what the Connection Machine was back at that time.
>
>In the next two paragraph you admit that it was "difficult",
No, you are misinterpreting. You said it was difficult to PROGRAM.
I said that that was not true. I said that what was difficult was
convert existing code to parallel code **WITHOUT** (RE)PROGRAMMING
the algorithms. And it was (and is) especially hard for large,
undocumented Fortran programs that may not even compile using a
standar Fortran compiler anymore!
It 's relatively easy to take an algorithm and program it up using
parallelism. It's not easy to take existing code and try to 'convert'
it to parallel code without going back to the algorithm and
PROGRAMMING it anew.
That doesn't mean that programming a CM was hard, or people
couldn't figure out how to do it.
But the 'tried and true' Fortran codes written (then) 20 years ago,
encompassing millions of lines of obscure gotos that no one understood
anymore (circa 1990) were beyond the ability of machines to translate
reasonably into parallelisms, and beyond the willingness of people to
reimplement.
>that only a few people had a clue,
No, plenty of people had a clue.
> and that automatic program
>translation (which is what was really required to do the job)
>was (and probably remains) an unsolved problem.
Yup.
>
>> The problem was that it was difficult to take existing code and
>> algorithms and have them run efficiently on a parallel architecture.
>> People, myself included, knew very well how to translate serial
>> algorithms into efficient parallel algorithms.
>
>> It's just that when you have a 1,000,000 line piece of Fortran code
>> doing A-bomb simulations written in 1960 that no one understands
>> any more it's almost impossible to get it run on a parallel
>> architecture, but that's where the biggest potential market was.
>
>I don't think we're substantively disagreeing here.
>
>I was responding to the argument that Lisp is a "failure" and
>the supporting evidence that the Connection Machine was a failure.
>My point is that Lisp, per se, didn't have anything to do with the
>Connection Machine. Most customers programmed in Fortran, not *Lisp.
>
Lisp had a lot to do with the early Connection Machines, but had
almost nothing to do with Connection Machines during the interval
when TMC went downhill and eventually bankrupt (1992 -1994).
So yes, that's correct.
>Certainly the fact that the original CM had a Lisp Machine for a
>front-end control console and cross-development environment is
>quite irrelevent. Rather, it suggests that Lisp was a "winner",
>having been selected for that application. When Lisp Machines
>were out of favor, later versions of the CM used SUN workstations
>as the front-end machine (not to mention SPARC chips as the
>paralllel processing elements).
>
>Lisp had nothing to do with the failure of Thinking Machines.
Probably true. And equally probably true neither did any other
language the CM was programmed in, or not programmed in.
>However, Lisp had lots to do with the success there, specifically
>in the creation of the underlying technology.
>
Both the CM2 and CM5 hardware were designed using Lisp Machines
and Lisp, AFAIK.
>Lisp was the scapegoat of insane business practices, major
>economic changes, and everything else no matter how vaugely
>tangentally related to AI Winter. And newbies reading this stuff
>(those who were not professionally involved back in those decades)
>should also bear in mind that the business world of computers
>is a completely different landscape now than it was back then.
>
>Lisp did not fail. Some business, mostly run by people who
>were incompetent (which is standard) are what failed.
TMC was a very different company that most of those 'indicted'
in the AI winter cataclysm, and it's successes and failures
probably are not a good example when trying to examine
that phenomenon. IMHO
JP Massar <······@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >
> >Lisp had nothing to do with the failure of Thinking Machines.
>
> Probably true. And equally probably true neither did any other
> language the CM was programmed in, or not programmed in.
That's all I'm really saying, in the end.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> The failure of the leading Lisp company, Symbolics, was arguably
> not largely related to technology decisions. Bad real estate
> deals played and poor marketing were major culprits.
> Practically all companies that used Lisp Machines had great
> success with them.
>
> The Connection Machine was not a Lisp Machine; it was mostly
> programmed in a version of FORTRAN, I think. All the competing
> massively parallel computer companies also went out of business.
> Few people needed these machines, and nobody could really
> figure out how to program them.
Here and in your next post, nearly all your points are fully in
agreement with what I've said. All I can detect is "violent agreement."
;)
> > Now, do I think this is a strike against Lisp? No; like many other
> > failed technologies, it can be repurposed towards incredible ends.
>
> I don't know what you mean by suggesting that Lisp "failed".
> It is a technology that has been, and continues to be, very
> successfully used in all kinds of areas,
We both know under which context Lisp is said to be "failed." And it is
quite true, just as there is the other context where this tool is a
success.
To deny either of them is to be in... denial. ;)
If that's good for you, then you have my best wishes. But don't be
surprised if you don't understand some of what Dick Gabriel writes. Or
find yourself unable to empathize with others sometimes.
MfG,
Tayssir
Tayssir,
Firt you assert that you know what is in my head,
and what we "both know", and as best as I can tell,
it's pretty much the opposite of what I think.
That does not make for a convincing argument.
Then you proceed to condescend to tell me that I
am unable to comprehend what someone else wrote,
on a subject that I am intimately familar with.
You then go on to inform me that I am unable
to empathize with other people. That does not
make for a convincing argument, and is also
pretty insulting.
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> Firt you assert that you know what is in my head,
> and what we "both know", and as best as I can tell,
> it's pretty much the opposite of what I think.
> That does not make for a convincing argument.
>
> Then you proceed to condescend to tell me that I
> am unable to comprehend what someone else wrote,
> on a subject that I am intimately familar with.
> You then go on to inform me that I am unable
> to empathize with other people. That does not
> make for a convincing argument, and is also
> pretty insulting.
This is entertaining to hear, since I was actually trying to figure out
a conciliatory way to say that you mostly misread what I wrote, and
that you were wasting posts violently agreeing with me.
Perhaps that was an example of a "failed post" on my part. I enjoy
using failed technologies, you see...
If you want, I could spend the time stringing together your assertions
(or those you explicitly agreed with), and form statements that I made.
Very mechanical. It'll be mindnumbing to read, but hey.
Should I spend the time on this? Because I think you're in a "space"
(as they say) where you feel attacked, but I think simply rereading my
earlier posts would make this entirely clear.
MfG,
Tayssir
Wow, ever got that *I'm not alone* feeling? I certainly didn't expect
so many interesting responses so quickly, it has given me alot to think
about.
The thing that shocked me the most about some of my lecturers
disagreeing with me, was that they are meant to be respectable
intelligent computer scientists. It doesn't really make sense to me
that someone passionate enough about computing to become a lecturer can
choose to ignore such an awesome technology. I literally program about
double as much as I used to because it's become so much fun. I find I
can literally write a program in Lisp and that can act as my
algorithmic designs(I just remove the parentheses) for my coursework
assignments - It's an invaluable helping tool that no one knows about.
Maybe some of you are right in saying I should just keep it to myself,
as my own personal advantage, I just can't help but wonder whether the
world will ever wake up.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:00:54 -0800, eddycool666 wrote:
> Maybe some of you are right in saying I should just keep it to myself,
> as my own personal advantage, I just can't help but wonder whether the
> world will ever wake up.
Give 'em time. One can't change the world in a day.
On 2005-01-23 21:00:54, ···········@hotmail.com wrote:
> I just can't help but wonder whether the
> world will ever wake up.
There's much traffic in comp.lang.lisp, many people on channel #lisp
(Freenode), a growing Wiki on <http://www.cliki.net/>, and more and
more projects on <http://common-lisp.net/>.
<···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I find I can literally write a program in Lisp and that can act
| as my algorithmic designs(I just remove the parentheses) for my
| coursework assignments - It's an invaluable helping tool that
| no one knows about.
+---------------
Not just coursework, either. I've done the same thing with Unix
kernel and embedded controller algorithms in commercial products:
Get the tricky bits of the algorithm figured out and actually
*working* in Lisp, then "hand-compile" the now-correct result
into C (or sometimes assembler!). A secret weapon, indeed! ;-}
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock schrieb:
> <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | I find I can literally write a program in Lisp and that can act
> | as my algorithmic designs(I just remove the parentheses) for my
> | coursework assignments - It's an invaluable helping tool that
> | no one knows about.
> +---------------
> Not just coursework, either. I've done the same thing with Unix
> kernel and embedded controller algorithms in commercial products:
> Get the tricky bits of the algorithm figured out and actually
> *working* in Lisp, then "hand-compile" the now-correct result
> into C (or sometimes assembler!). A secret weapon, indeed! ;-}
A question to that:
Is it possible to transform the kernel to lisp and run it from there?
stefan
lin8080 <·······@freenet.de> writes:
> Rob Warnock schrieb:
> > <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +---------------
> > | I find I can literally write a program in Lisp and that can act
> > | as my algorithmic designs(I just remove the parentheses) for my
> > | coursework assignments - It's an invaluable helping tool that
> > | no one knows about.
> > +---------------
>
> > Not just coursework, either. I've done the same thing with Unix
> > kernel and embedded controller algorithms in commercial products:
> > Get the tricky bits of the algorithm figured out and actually
> > *working* in Lisp, then "hand-compile" the now-correct result
> > into C (or sometimes assembler!). A secret weapon, indeed! ;-}
>
> A question to that:
> Is it possible to transform the kernel to lisp and run it from there?
http://common-lisp.net/project/movitz/
http://www.coyotos.org/ (have a look at BitC, the name is misleading)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You're always typing.
Well, let's see you ignore my
sitting on your hands.
lin8080 wrote:
> A question to that:
> Is it possible to transform the kernel to lisp and run it from there?
There was a project called "Schemix" - SIOD in the Linux kernel...
········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> lin8080 wrote:
>
>> A question to that:
>> Is it possible to transform the kernel to lisp and run it from there?
> There was a project called "Schemix" - SIOD in the Linux kernel...
Would be nice to have a subset of CL that can be used to do system
programming.
Regards,
--
____________________________
Julian Stecklina / _________________________/
________________/ /
\_________________/ LISP - truly beautiful
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
> ········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > lin8080 wrote:
> >
> >> A question to that:
> >> Is it possible to transform the kernel to lisp and run it from there?
> > There was a project called "Schemix" - SIOD in the Linux kernel...
>
> Would be nice to have a subset of CL that can be used to do system
> programming.
Well, not a subset of Common-Lisp, but a s-exp based system
programming language: BitC, used by the successor of EROS: coyote.
http://www.coyote.org
Of course, if you want to do system programming in Common-Lisp,
nothing prevents you. See for example Movitz (or the LispMachine).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
I need a new toy.
Tail of black dog keeps good time.
Pounce! Good dog! Good dog!
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> belched out:
> Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
>
>> ········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > lin8080 wrote:
>> >
>> >> A question to that:
>> >> Is it possible to transform the kernel to lisp and run it from there?
>> > There was a project called "Schemix" - SIOD in the Linux kernel...
>>
>> Would be nice to have a subset of CL that can be used to do system
>> programming.
>
> Well, not a subset of Common-Lisp, but a s-exp based system
> programming language: BitC, used by the successor of EROS: coyote.
>
> http://www.coyote.org
I don't see any indication of BitC or Coyote at that site; is there
any other discussion you know of?
--
(format nil ···@~S" "cbbrowne" "gmail.com")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
FLORIDA: If you think we can't vote, wait till you see us drive.
Up spake Christopher Browne:
>> Well, not a subset of Common-Lisp, but a s-exp based system
>> programming language: BitC, used by the successor of EROS: coyote.
>>
>> http://www.coyote.org
>
> I don't see any indication of BitC or Coyote at that site; is there
> any other discussion you know of?
I think he meant http://www.eros-os.com/
--
-trent
Documentation: Cryptic, lacking, erroneous. Pick any three.
Trent Buck wrote:
> Up spake Christopher Browne:
>
>>>Well, not a subset of Common-Lisp, but a s-exp based system
>>>programming language: BitC, used by the successor of EROS: coyote.
>>>
>>> http://www.coyote.org
>>
>>I don't see any indication of BitC or Coyote at that site; is there
>>any other discussion you know of?
>
>
> I think he meant http://www.eros-os.com/
i'd wager he meant http://www.coyotos.org/ .. just seems a little easier
to make that typo. :)
drewc
drewc schrieb:
> Trent Buck wrote:
> > Up spake Christopher Browne:
> >>> http://www.coyote.org
> i'd wager he meant http://www.coyotos.org/ .. just seems a little easier
> to make that typo. :)
Coyot~~ looks nice. The htm-side say:
- Once we have a baseline kernel working, ...
- We are planning to bring up versions of Coyotos on large-scale
multiprocessors ...
- It is far too early to speculate about release dates.
Hmm. But it looks nice. Will be good to have it.
In the eros-htm-side I found a big list of (newer) papers.
There I go :)
My first impression is, that security makes a great part of the 2
projects.
The reason for my question is I have in mind, to get something like a
lisp-machine-version by using existing (BS-) software. The last time
(12.04) I experimented with dammsmallinux to see wether threading will
work, but I don't get that...
So thank you for the links.
stefan
On 25 Jan 2005 18:01:18 +0100,
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> http://www.coyote.org
Actually, I think you meant http://coyotos.org...
raja
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> wrote:
+---------------
| Would be nice to have a subset of CL that can be used to do system
| programming.
+---------------
You might want to look at "ThinLisp" <http://www.cliki.net/ThinLisp>:
ThinLisp is a Common Lisp implementation that compiles to very
efficient C code.
By Jim Allard and Ben Hyde. It is meant to allow deployment of
CL-developed applications as efficient C-compiled code, and thus
includes notable restrictions as compared to full CL semantics.
[...such as no GC.]
Also see <http://www.thinlisp.org/whitepaper.html>
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
> Also see <http://www.thinlisp.org/whitepaper.html>
Am sceptical about see the download section:
Release of 1999/05/23:
that now 6 years agao.
and trying to access the Bug database fails immediatly
How about ECL instead?
http://ecls.sourceforge.net/
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:23:58 +0100, Friedrich Dominicus <···················@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
>> Also see <http://www.thinlisp.org/whitepaper.html>
> Am sceptical about see the download section:
> Release of 1999/05/23:
>
> that now 6 years agao.
Not to mention that the link doesn't seem to work... :)
The SF icon, however, leads to a download link that's "only" 3 1/2
years old:
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/thinlisp>
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> wrote:
+---------------
| Friedrich Dominicus <···················@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
| > ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
| >> Also see <http://www.thinlisp.org/whitepaper.html>
| >
| > Am sceptical about see the download section:
| > Release of 1999/05/23:
| > that now 6 years agao.
|
| Not to mention that the link doesn't seem to work... :)
| The SF icon, however, leads to a download link that's "only" 3 1/2
| years old: <http://sourceforge.net/projects/thinlisp>
+---------------
That's version 1.0.1, which I tried briefly with some success long ago
[hence the above semi-recommendation]:
$ ls -l /thinlisp-1.0.1.tgz
-rw-r--r-- 1 rpw3 rpw3 845111 Oct 28 2001 thinlisp-1.0.1.tgz
$
[The date is probably just when I snarfed it.] While a few of the files
in this tarball date from 1999, most have dates at various times in 2001.
There's also a 1.1 version, which is only alluded to on the SourceForge
site, which I seem to have snarfed circa June 2004:
$ ls -l thinlisp-1.1.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 rpw3 rpw3 781386 Jun 10 2004 thinlisp-1.1.tar.gz
$
and some of the files inside are as recent as February 2004. I have not
yet tried to run this version, however.
Note: Google gives only one hit for "thinlisp-1.1", a pointer to an
archive of a thread from c.l.lisp on the topic of "Fundamentals of Lisp
efficiency?" <http://www.codecomments.com/archive274-2004-6-213589.html>
in which Vladimir Sedach talked about ThinLisp, saying:
...
Now, the good thing about ThinLisp is that it produces C code that
is very much human readable, and I didn't see any obvious performance
weak spots. I can't speak with authority, but most of the code it
produces seems to have a constant number of lines to do package
management/etc. over what a C programmer would write. The unique
thing is that it compiles to static C - there's only a thin layer
of function glue over a C library. That means it produces very small
and portable code, but you don't get eval. C functions are called
directly, and data boxing is really obvious to see and control.
The ThinLisp website is http://www.thinlisp.org/. If you want to try
it, I've patched it up and added some stuff (though I can't release
the more substantial program) and made a tarball available at
<http://voodoohut.homeunix.net/thinlisp-1.1.tar.gz>. As soon as
I'm able to remember how I registered at SourceForge, I'll upload
it there too.
I suspect that URL is where I grabbed the "thinlisp-1.1" listed above,
but that server isn't currently responding. (*sigh*) I suppose I could
put it up on my own server if there's serious interest (but I'd rather
not be slashdotted!).
Also note that this might *not* be the same one mentioned on SourceForge.
Vladimir Sedach may have just named his "1.1" to distinguish it from
Jim Allard's "1.0.1".
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock schrieb:
> Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Would be nice to have a subset of CL that can be used to do system
> | programming.
> +---------------
> You might want to look at "ThinLisp" <http://www.cliki.net/ThinLisp>:
Well, I have a look at ThinLisp in ~2001. The interesting point this
time was to get access to the linux driver-datas from inside a
Lisp-system. But I end in an ocean of config-parameters (I do not know
that all detailed enough, so I find no way, but I'm sure there is a
possibility)
stefan
(describe device xyz)
Most people can not turn off thier ability to hear, but people can and
do turn off thier ability to listen.
Don Wells
On 23 Jan 2005 08:01:58 -0800, ···········@hotmail.com (Edward Tate)
wrote:
>Hey there fellow Lispers,
>
>I have some somewhat strange dilemmas on my hands, I'm a uni student
>studying Computer Science with Games Dev, and a few months ago I
>started programming Lisp. Through attending lectures about C#, I
>realised that there are alot of benefits in using Lisp over C#.
>
>One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
>language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
>it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
>from the idea. So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
>I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
>never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
>know the language. Feeling compelled to prove one my lecturers wrong,
>I sent him some franz links to show how Lisp has had some success, but
>he never answered the e-mail.
>
>Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
>program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
>kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
>about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
>with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
>flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
>feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
>better technology, yet no one ever listens.
···········@hotmail.com (Edward Tate) writes:
> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
> it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
> from the idea. So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
> I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp?
I consider C/C++/C# to be toy languages because their feature sets are
so outdated. If I wanted to use a languge from 1950, it would be 1950
right now. It's 2005; I'll use a language for the future,
thankyouverymuch.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
"Rahul Jain" <·····@nyct.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
···················@nyct.net...
...
>
> I consider C/C++/C# to be toy languages because their feature sets are
> so outdated. If I wanted to use a languge from 1950, it would be 1950
> right now. It's 2005; I'll use a language for the future,
> thankyouverymuch.
>
...
Well, I am an absolute Lisp fan. Thinking about my current work, I don't
know how to do it in any other language. I'm sure I will not have any
performance drawback but have even better performance than comparable
C-Software.
But, if somebody asks me which language I'd choose to write really *fast*
audio/video processing software for PCs, I'd still suggest assembler and
C/C++.
Andreas
"Andreas Thiele" <······@nospam.com> writes:
> But, if somebody asks me which language I'd choose to write really *fast*
> audio/video processing software for PCs, I'd still suggest assembler and
> C/C++.
Well, that's your personal choice. Personally, I'd like a language where
I can dynamically optimize my algorithms. There are some issues with the
GCs in some implementations, but those can often be worked around, or
the target platform can be changed to be a Mac or PPC running Linux. :)
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Edward Tate wrote:
> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
> it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
> from the idea. So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
> I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
> never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
> know the language. Feeling compelled to prove one my lecturers wrong,
> I sent him some franz links to show how Lisp has had some success, but
> he never answered the e-mail.
>
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
Part of it may be is that you are uncomfortable using Lisp and that
you stand out. Another is that, though you may not like to admit
it, you care what other people think of you. Your friends feel the
same way, they really care what others think of them, especially
how the professors view them. I agree with you on your choice
of Lisp, it takes guts to not follow the human societal instincts.
Do well in your courses, do your best, then you will be able to look
at yourself in the mirror. Do not think that no one listens. I
would think its a even bet they go home at night and secretly
check out what this Lisp thing is all about.
Wade
On 23 Jan 2005 08:01:58 -0800, Edward Tate <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ... stuff deleted ...
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned.
raja
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:01:58 -0800, Edward Tate wrote:
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
I've had similar experiences in the past. You have to be smart and subtle
about this. You have to make other people think *they* discovered Lisp.
For better or worse, you have to allow people to change their minds while
not having to admit their minds have been changed.
I ran up against all the usual "write it in Lisp?! We'd need a
supercomputer!" comments when I started my current job and advocated Lisp.
I stopped advocating it that way, because I saw I was getting nowhere.
These days I give people *little* bits of Lisp advocacy. And I pretend
it's not advocacy - it's just interesting information. So instead of
telling people that we should rewrite the entire project in Lisp, I just
drop in little "Lisp has an interesting way of doing this..." comments,
especially when pair-programming. I've found it works a *lot* better.
Oh, and when people give their knee-jerk reactions (e.g. "yeah, but Lisp
is really slow") I *don't* immediately correct them. That would just get
us into a flamewar, the problem being that they couldn't easily change
their viewpoint later without looking silly. A good diversionary tactic is
something like "well, we should probably get back to this refactoring".
It means you don't have to react to their comments at all.
There are two other people at work now who are studying Lisp (which is a
large percentage of our small team) and they seem to be liking it a lot,
to the extent that they now complain about Java's missing features!
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Bill.
Edward Tate wrote:
> Hey there fellow Lispers,
>
> I have some somewhat strange dilemmas on my hands, I'm a uni student
> studying Computer Science with Games Dev, and a few months ago I
> started programming Lisp. Through attending lectures about C#, I
> realised that there are alot of benefits in using Lisp over C#.
>
> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available",
OK, but you are attending uni, not vocational school.
Besides, Lisp is taking off and when the jobs appear you will be ready.
It also sounds as if you are also learning enough C* to put them on the
resume, which is all that matters.
Listing "Lisp" first will set you off from the crowd and land you
interviews others won't get.
and
> it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
> from the idea.
Thank them, tell them they are right, and admit you are taking a risk.
>... So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
> I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
> never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
> know the language.
Actually, even those of us who know the language are not sure why after
almost fifty years of language development Lisp is still the most
modern. We are thinking McCarthy is an alien.
> Feeling compelled to prove one my lecturers wrong,...
Oh, god, do not do that. Nobody likes that, but academics are the worst.
> I sent him some franz links to show how Lisp has had some success, but
> he never answered the e-mail.
Watch your snail mail instead, for a pipe bomb.
>
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way?
History.
> Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp?
Come on, you had to know you were making a controversial albeit wise choice.
> How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it?
First, acknowledge their points about it being old, about no one using
it, about there being no jobs. That will defuse the war thing. Then say
"But I love <this and that specific aspect> and get my work done so fast
and it is so much fun I cannot stop." When they bring up the job thing
again, admit you are doomed. In brief, do not argue, just keep bringing
the subject back to the language itself and specific features. Steer
away from the popularity issue and towards the feature issue. This is
uni, right? A chance to explore and learn? Is academic freedom only for
the profs? <oops>
You can also say "hopefully I can parlay this into Python or Ruby or
Groovy (new, dynamic Java thingy) work, they all have heritage in Lisp".
Another thing you can do is print up cards with URLs of the FRanz site,
Graham's site, Peter's upcoming PCL, and The Road to Lisp Survey (see my
sig) and say, "It's a long story." And include links to Eckel's and
Martin's blogs where they admit strong static typing is doomed.
> It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
Cells!
:)
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Cells-Gtkk?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Land o' Kenny? http://www.tilton-technology.com/index.html
Obligatory quote to make me seem cool:
"Doctor, I wrestled with reality for forty years, and I am happy to
state that I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
start quoting Kenny Tilton :
> Another thing you can do is print up cards with URLs of the FRanz site,
> Graham's site, Peter's upcoming PCL, and The Road to Lisp Survey (see my
> sig) and say, "It's a long story." And include links to Eckel's and
> Martin's blogs where they admit strong static typing is doomed.
>
I've been searching for these; please tell me where to find them.
> Cells!
Documentation! _Please_!
^_^
- Svein Ove Aas
Svein Ove Aas wrote:
> start quoting Kenny Tilton :
>
>
>>Another thing you can do is print up cards with URLs of the FRanz site,
>>Graham's site, Peter's upcoming PCL, and The Road to Lisp Survey (see my
>>sig) and say, "It's a long story." And include links to Eckel's and
>>Martin's blogs where they admit strong static typing is doomed.
>>
>
> I've been searching for these; please tell me where to find them.
Which ones? Most are easily googleable. You mean Bruse Eckel's and
Robert Martin's?
>
>
>>Cells!
>
>
> Documentation! _Please_!
:c (c? (sqrt (+ (expt (^a) 2)(expt (^b) 2))))
<g>
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Cells-Gtkk?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Land o' Kenny? http://www.tilton-technology.com/index.html
Obligatory quote to make me seem cool:
"Doctor, I wrestled with reality for forty years, and I am happy to
state that I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Up spake Kenny Tilton:
>> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
>> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available",
That's funny, substitute "Linux" for "Lisp" and you have me, three years
ago. Nobody says "There are no Linux jobs" anymore.
> OK, but you are attending uni, not vocational school.
<rant>
There's not much difference, down here, anyway. The only unis that
haven't moved to "business-oriented" CompSci courses seem to be the ones
who run it as part of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering (rather than
Faculty of IT).
Nobody else even wants to teach algorithms anymore, just Java APIs.
Programming is a *subset* of Computer Science, dammit!
</rant>
> >... So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
> > I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
> > never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
> > know the language.
Yep. The best way to do advocacy is to watch them struggle with $foo
for a bit, then say "Oh, $foo. That's really easy in Lisp, because it
has $bar."
If you do this frequently enough, people with either think 1) you're a
nutter; or 2) shit, maybe he's on to something. You tend to get the
latter more often if you are demonstrably more productive, but be
prepared for a few of the former.
> Actually, even those of us who know the language are not sure why after
> almost fifty years of language development Lisp is still the most
> modern. We are thinking McCarthy is an alien.
He's a star child, and Lisp the the black monolith :-)
>> I sent him some franz links to show how Lisp has had some success, but
>> he never answered the e-mail.
I really hate when they do that. At my current Uni, most units have a
group on the private Usenet node, and most of the tutors and assistant
lecturers read it. (The lecturers don't, because they're only lecturing
because it's a condition of their grant.) What's important is that when
someone posts a question, at least half of the answers are from other
students.
Try to organize a many-to-many forum with the bright students, and hope
that the rest (and the academic staff) will join in when they realize it
works.
> > Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> > program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> > kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> > about Lisp that makes people this way?
>
> History.
I would call it inertia, or the momentum of opposing views.
> > Why do I always end up arguing
> > with everyone when I mention Lisp?
You're probably not a good disputant / advocate, yet (I know I'm not).
--
-trent
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and
wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
On 2005-01-23 17:01:58, Edward Tate wrote:
> How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it?
Don't mention it. :-)
You can't force them to think like you (or comp.lang.lisp). Just use
the tool which fits _you_ and invest your time into learning Common
Lisp instead of doing advocacy.
···········@hotmail.com (Edward Tate) writes:
> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
> it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
> from the idea. So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
> I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
> never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
> know the language.
don't be afraid of not being average. Read http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html ,
it is "well put" I'd say.
--
Oyvin
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:55:08 +0100, Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
> ···········@hotmail.com (Edward Tate) writes:
>
>> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
>> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
>> it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
>> from the idea. So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
>> I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
>> never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
>> know the language.
>
> don't be afraid of not being average. Read http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html ,
> it is "well put" I'd say.
That's a good point. These days I don't try quite so hard to advocate
Lisp, because I want to do a start-up some day and I believe Lisp will
give me a competitive advantage. I only bother advocating Lisp to people
I might want to start a company with ;-)
Cheers,
Bill.
On 23 Jan 2005 08:01:58 -0800, Edward Tate <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey there fellow Lispers,
>
> I have some somewhat strange dilemmas on my hands, I'm a uni student
> studying Computer Science with Games Dev, and a few months ago I
> started programming Lisp. Through attending lectures about C#, I
> realised that there are alot of benefits in using Lisp over C#.
>
> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
> it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter me
> from the idea. So I constantly ask them, If it is so outdated, why can
> I do everything that I would usually do in C/C++/C#, in Lisp? But they
> never give me any genuine answers, because most of them don't even
> know the language. Feeling compelled to prove one my lecturers wrong,
> I sent him some franz links to show how Lisp has had some success, but
> he never answered the e-mail.
>
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
My experience is that Lisp appeals to the mathematically inclined.
Long before I discovered Lisp I was studying the theory of computation and
realized the beauty of the my-recursive functions (Church's thesis).
I started wondering why mathematicians didn't address the inadequacy
of logic. That it couldn't even define a irrational number. Logically
induction, one of the primary proof methods, doses not comply
to the rules of logic because it uses the conclusion in the premises.
Obviously nature uses causality so a expression of the rules of
nature must be based on causality too. That kind of stuff.
Some people are thinkers by nature. I am one of them.
Some people like to follow the heard.
The guy that simply wants job security and a solid pay check
is more likely to choose Java since it is more used and there
is a greater demand for jobs in it.
Lisper's seem to be of a breed of people that are passionate about
programming. I believe Paul Graham touches on the subject in
"Hackers and painters"
To my competitors I also recommend Java... ;)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> My experience is that Lisp appeals to the mathematically inclined.
This may be true.
But the rest:
> Long before I discovered Lisp I was studying the theory of computation and
> realized the beauty of the my-recursive functions (Church's thesis).
> I started wondering why mathematicians didn't address the inadequacy
> of logic. That it couldn't even define a irrational number. Logically
> induction, one of the primary proof methods, doses not comply
> to the rules of logic because it uses the conclusion in the premises.
> Obviously nature uses causality so a expression of the rules of
> nature must be based on causality too. That kind of stuff.
is nonsense.
Sorry.
Andras
On 24 Jan 2005 11:26:20 +0100, Andras Simon <······@math.bme.hu> wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>
>> My experience is that Lisp appeals to the mathematically inclined.
>
> This may be true.
>
> But the rest:
>
>> Long before I discovered Lisp I was studying the theory of computation
>> and
>> realized the beauty of the my-recursive functions (Church's thesis).
>> I started wondering why mathematicians didn't address the inadequacy
>> of logic. That it couldn't even define a irrational number. Logically
>> induction, one of the primary proof methods, doses not comply
>> to the rules of logic because it uses the conclusion in the premises.
>> Obviously nature uses causality so a expression of the rules of
>> nature must be based on causality too. That kind of stuff.
>
> is nonsense.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Andras
Fine! Describe differential equations in logic if you will..
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> On 24 Jan 2005 11:26:20 +0100, Andras Simon <······@math.bme.hu> wrote:
>
> > "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> >
> >> My experience is that Lisp appeals to the mathematically inclined.
> >
> > This may be true.
> >
> > But the rest:
> >
> >> Long before I discovered Lisp I was studying the theory of
> >> computation and
> >> realized the beauty of the my-recursive functions (Church's thesis).
> >> I started wondering why mathematicians didn't address the inadequacy
> >> of logic. That it couldn't even define a irrational number. Logically
> >> induction, one of the primary proof methods, doses not comply
> >> to the rules of logic because it uses the conclusion in the premises.
> >> Obviously nature uses causality so a expression of the rules of
> >> nature must be based on causality too. That kind of stuff.
> >
> > is nonsense.
> >
> > Sorry.
> >
> > Andras
>
> Fine! Describe differential equations in logic if you will..
You haven't mentioned differential equations in your post, but never
mind, here's a simple one for you:
Function(f) & Dom(f) = R & Derivative(f)={<x,x> : x\in R}
I assume you know how to define Function, Dom, R and Derivative in ZFC
+ first order logic.
[Yes, f'(x)=x, x\in R is as simple as a DE can get; and I know that if
all of this is written out fully, the result is quite unwieldy. Think
of FOL as the assembly language of mathematics.]
But back to your OP:
> >> Logically
> >> induction, one of the primary proof methods, doses not comply
> >> to the rules of logic because it uses the conclusion in the premises.
As far as FOL (the most widely accepted logic for mathematics) is
concerned, there's no such thing as induction. It has a few derivation
rules, such as Modus Ponens, but induction is not one of them. There
are FO theories that have induction axioms; Peano Arithmetic is one
famous example. There, an induction axiom has the form
[phi(0) & (forall x) (phi(x) -> phi(x+1))] -> (forall x) phi(x)
where phi(x) is a formula in the language of PA. It's just an ordinary
FO sentence. What's wrong with it? [Hint: nothing.] Does the sentence
"psi -> psi" also bother you "because it uses the conclusion in the
premises."?
HTH,
Andras
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> Long before I discovered Lisp I was studying the theory of computation and
> realized the beauty of the my-recursive functions (Church's thesis).
> I started wondering why mathematicians didn't address the inadequacy
> of logic. That it couldn't even define a irrational number.
If you studied the theory of computation you ought to know why you
cannot represent true irrational numbers in computational logic. :)
Regards,
--
____________________________
Julian Stecklina / _________________________/
________________/ /
\_________________/ LISP - truly beautiful
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:18:49 +0100, Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de>
wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>
>> Long before I discovered Lisp I was studying the theory of computation
>> and
>> realized the beauty of the my-recursive functions (Church's thesis).
>> I started wondering why mathematicians didn't address the inadequacy
>> of logic. That it couldn't even define a irrational number.
>
> If you studied the theory of computation you ought to know why you
> cannot represent true irrational numbers in computational logic. :)
>
> Regards,
It requires a recursive definition!
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Edward Tate wrote:
> know the language. Feeling compelled to prove one my lecturers wrong,
> I sent him some franz links to show how Lisp has had some success,
but
> he never answered the e-mail.
Giving in to compulsions to prove your lecturers wrong on their own
turf is a bad political move.
The way you get even with lecturers is by getting out of that aquarium
and carving a piece of affluent living for yourself in the world at
large.
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that
I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
Don't forget that you don't have all that much Lisp experience
yourself.
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way?
This is not about Lisp but about personalities. Lisp, C# and whatnot
are just meta-variables here. You could be a caveman experimenting with
a new kind of spear that no other caveman in your neighborhood has.
> Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp?
That is about you; only you can answer that. People typically argue
because they like to argue, and they continue to argue when each thinks
he has an advantage over his opponents.
> How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it?
You can respond to clueless remarks with a dumb look, and walk away.
The surest way not to get anyone's approval or acceptance is to appear
that you yearn for these.
When you stop caring about whether people like your ideas, or at least
behaving that way, they are more likely to become interested in them.
Even more so if you appear to want to conceal those ideas.
> It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
If your advocacy were successful, you would soon be forgotten, and all
the people you converted would spin it like it was their own active
research which led them to all these good ideas.
The best thing to do with better technology is find a way to make it
work to your own advantage and forget about everyone else. If people
choose to be blind to it, all the better. It means that, if it comes to
that, they won't even know how to compete with you in spite of knowing
what tools you are using.
"Kaz Kylheku" <···@ashi.footprints.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> The best thing to do with better technology is find a way to make it
> work to your own advantage and forget about everyone else.
...
I'd agree. When I was very new to Lisp I had the same question. Why are
people so utterly ignorant about Lisp? I did argue because I was not really
sure about the power of Lisp. After 1.5 years working with it I am sure
about this. Now I consider Lisp as advantage over my competitors and never
mention it. People don't need to know that my software is written in Lisp. I
just hope my softwares functionality, performance and development cycles
will make my competitors afraid in the future :-)
Andreas
"Andreas Thiele" <······@nospam.com> writes:
> Now I consider Lisp as advantage over my competitors and never
> mention it. People don't need to know that my software is written in Lisp.
I think it's quite common to do this. However, you have to weigh the
temptation to use lisp as your "secret weapon" against the advantages
of a larger user base of the lisp implementations.
--
(espen)
"Espen Vestre" <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
···················@merced.netfonds.no...
...
> ... you have to weigh the
> temptation to use lisp as your "secret weapon" against the advantages
> of a larger user base of the lisp implementations.
> --
> (espen)
I agree. At the moment I am working on a startup. I just don't talk in the
public - I mean through me upcoming website - about Lisp. At least not yet.
People talking directly to me, will have to listen to my thoughts :-)
And I try to support people, as far as I can, by reading and answering
c.l.l.
Andreas
···········@hotmail.com (Edward Tate) writes:
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating. So what is it
> about Lisp that makes people this way? Why do I always end up arguing
> with everyone when I mention Lisp? How can I prevent getting into
> flamewars anytime I mention it? It's irritating in itself because I
> feel the need to advocate it, as one would if one was faced with a
> better technology, yet no one ever listens.
There is something about Lisp that really, really connects with some
people. A different way of thinking. An entire different attitude
towards programming.
When someone who is really suited to Lisp meets it for the first time,
they are stunned and amazed that such a thing existed and that they
didn't know about it. They then wonder why everyone isn't using it,
and then make it their mission to bring Lisp to the world.
The thing is, most people don't want to change their attitude towards
programming. And where a Lispnik sees the beauty and simplicity of
s-expressions, most people just see a funny syntax with too many
parenthesis that makes their head hurt. Many of the uninitiated might
change their mind if they got deep enough into the language to
discover the power of macros, or any of the other goodies that are
hidden there. But many would not. There are people out there who
actually like and depend on the bondage style of programming, where
everything that you do is limited and carefully constrained.
This is something that everyone who really connects with Lisp
eventually has to deal with; that there are people out there, possibly
even the majority, who arn't really suited to Lisp at all, and don't
want to listen to people constantly advocating it. The real tragedy
is that this majority does its best to push Lisp out of the limelight,
so that many of those that are suited to it never find it.
My advice is to take a mostly passive approach to advocacy, and to
advocate Lisp first and foremost by using it. If someone asks you
what your favorite language is, or what language you are using for a
particular project, then tell them. And if they ask you why, then
tell them that too. By intriguing them and getting them to take the
initiative, there is a much better chance that they'll actually take a
serious look at it than if you advocate it as the One True Solution
For Everything. (There are so many people doing this in computing for
so many different things that pushing something that hard is almost an
instant turn-off.)
But most of all, understand that you are far from the only one to go
through this experience. I went through it myself.
Iain
According to Edward Tate <···········@hotmail.com>:
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating.
So find better buddies to hang around with.
--
Ng Pheng Siong <····@netmemetic.com>
http://sandbox.rulemaker.net/ngps -+- M2Crypto, ZServerSSL for Zope, Blog
http://www.sqlcrypt.com -+- Database Engine with Transparent AES Encryption
On 8998 day of my life Edward Tate wrote:
> Most of my fellow computer scientist buddies think it's *funny* that I
> program in Lisp because "no one else does - so it must be shit". This
> kind of attitude is getting _seriously_ irritating.
Hm... Actually billions of flies love shit. And shit is more popular
among flies than C-bla-bla among people. Shit is popular.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Is 'morning' a gerund?
···········@hotmail.com (Edward Tate) writes:
> One of my problems is that half my lecturers think Lisp is a "Toy
> language", because there are apparently "little jobs available", and
> it is apparently "outdated", so they are constantly trying to deter
> me from the idea.
I'm amused that so many academics both deride any attempt to bring
real-world software problems into their ivory towers of Computer
Science and languages like Lisp because they're "outdated."
I submit that your lecturers' knowledge is probably what's outdated,
which will allow us to assume that they had it in the first place.
As you point out, there are plenty of examples where Lisp is being
used, such as on the Franz Web site. That your lecturer did not
respond is probably telling. Either he's taking the time to read
those case studies and re-evaluate his opinion in light of newfound
information (that might be nice, and it does happen -- occasionally)
or he's not interested in being confused by facts.
I really have no further patience for people who regurgitate this
tired spew of Lisp's supposed non-utility, especially from people
whose ability to create software has nothing to do with their
livelihood. Let's face it, in academia, you can spend decades
murmuring piffle in front of the Professionals of Tomorrow and get
along quite well. In an open marketplace, whether you eat comes down
to whether you can demonstrate some kind of measurable improvement in
something for which someone else is willing to pay.
One final note,
> Feeling compelled to prove one my lecturers wrong,
Beware of your motivations. What, really, do you hope to accomplish
by proving a lecturer wrong? Let them all go about the business and
learn their C# and go blindly marching forward. Learn your Lisp,
learn economics, find a good group of people to go in with who
understand things like business, marketing, sales, some industry or
other and build yourself an ASP that uses Lisp. They'll never
understand how you managed to eat their lunches.
Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to
predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay
(n.b., I'm an industrial hacker but also a part-time Lecturer at The
Ohio State University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
I teach (guess?) CSE 459.31, Programming in Lisp.)
--
Matt Curtin, author of Brute Force: Cracking the Data Encryption Standard
Founder of Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 4225 http://web.interhack.com/
Forensic Computing | Information Assurance | Managed Information Technology
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:11:47 -0500, Matt Curtin wrote:
> (n.b., I'm an industrial hacker but also a part-time Lecturer at The
> Ohio State University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. I
> teach (guess?) CSE 459.31, Programming in Lisp.)
That reminds me. How many schools actually teach Lisp?
BR schrieb:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:11:47 -0500, Matt Curtin wrote:
> > (n.b., I'm an industrial hacker but also a part-time Lecturer at The
> > Ohio State University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. I
> > teach (guess?) CSE 459.31, Programming in Lisp.)
> That reminds me. How many schools actually teach Lisp?
Example:
Sun makes once a nice present to the Uni HongKong:
(guess what)
Yeah: the brand new Java2
(and now guess why)
...
stefan
( ...
serving babylon is slavery
using babylon is hell
KI-buz*
)
Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net> writes:
> As you point out, there are plenty of examples where Lisp is being
> used, such as on the Franz Web site. That your lecturer did not
Other useful resources:
Industry Application
http://lisp.tech.coop/Industry%20Application
Success Stories
http://lisp.tech.coop/Success%20Stories
Evaluate Lisp
http://lisp.tech.coop/Evaluate%20Lisp
Paolo
--
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (see also http://clrfi.alu.org):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> Matt Curtin <········@interhack.net> writes:
>
> > As you point out, there are plenty of examples where Lisp is being
> > used, such as on the Franz Web site. That your lecturer did not
>
> Other useful resources:
>
> Industry Application
> http://lisp.tech.coop/Industry%20Application
Don't show this to strangers: A quick random test shows that many of
the links are broken and those that aren't show no relation to Lisp.
Even if you google on the corresponding sites for "lisp" you don't
find anything or only very little.
If you want to make a point that Lisp is dead, the page above would
actually fit nicely into the picture ("look at their so-called
applications!").
Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
> Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
[...]
>> Other useful resources:
>>
>> Industry Application
>> http://lisp.tech.coop/Industry%20Application
>
> Don't show this to strangers: A quick random test shows that many of
> the links are broken and those that aren't show no relation to Lisp.
The above page was originally part of the currently spam-flooded and
muribund ALU CLiki site:
http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
I created the first version of that page a few years ago. I can
assure you that I added entries only after checking that Lisp was
currently involved (i.e. information was less than one year or so old)
at the time.
My sources were comp.lang.lisp postings, postings to Lisp mailing
lists, Lisp conference proceedings, job openings announcements where
Lisp was explicitly mentioned for a project, etc. Some time later,
Dan Barlow commented that it would have been more interesting to have
links to additional information. Then I started adding those links,
and you can still find Dan's comment there.
I was aware that the information was going to need updates and, since
the page was publicly editable, I repeatedly asked for help in
comp.lang.lisp. But each time, I only got a handful of new entries or
corrections.
If you find broken links, and are reasonably sure that Lisp is no
longer used at some companies, you are welcome to edit the page and
delete/correct entries as appropriate.
> Even if you google on the corresponding sites for "lisp" you don't
> find anything or only very little.
I didn't collect most of the information from web sites in the first
place. My sources were different, see above.
> If you want to make a point that Lisp is dead, the page above would
> actually fit nicely into the picture ("look at their so-called
> applications!").
And if you want to make a point that Lisp is not dead, just edit the
page.
Paolo
--
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (see also http://clrfi.alu.org):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
>
> > Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> [...]
> >> Other useful resources:
> >>
> >> Industry Application
> >> http://lisp.tech.coop/Industry%20Application
> >
> > Don't show this to strangers: A quick random test shows that many of
> > the links are broken and those that aren't show no relation to Lisp.
>
> The above page was originally part of the currently spam-flooded and
> muribund ALU CLiki site:
>
> http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
>
> I created the first version of that page a few years ago. I can
> assure you that I added entries only after checking that Lisp was
> currently involved (i.e. information was less than one year or so old)
> at the time.
The concept of just collecting links to companies using lisp is never
going to work: First, companies web pages change rapidly. Second,
most companies have no intend to advertise for Lisp. So even if they
use it, they don't tell because their customers don't care.
A better idea is to ask developers/managers etc. for success stories
and put _these_ on _your_ web site. So there are no links that can
get out of date. You have all the information on your page.
I put "python industry" in google and the first link I got was
http://www.pythonology.com/success which essentially implements this
idea. Note that you can read every single story and there are no dead
links. (Maybe there are on the pages following .../success)
> [...]
> If you find broken links, and are reasonably sure that Lisp is no
> longer used at some companies, you are welcome to edit the page and
> delete/correct entries as appropriate.
If the page shall be used for advertising the criterion "broken link
and(!) reasonably sure that Lisp is no longer used" is not good
enough. In my opinion a better (more strict) criterion would be: If
you google "lisp site:www.company.com" without success, remove the
link. This would make the page quite a bit shorter but it might leave
a better impression with the reader.
On 26 Jan 2005 19:26:20 +0100, Matthias <··@spam.pls> wrote:
> In my opinion a better (more strict) criterion would be: If you
> google "lisp site:www.company.com" without success, remove the link.
I've personally submitted two of these links. Of both of the
companies I know positively that they still use Lisp but you won't
find out by visiting their website or searching Google. On the other
hand, one of the companies also uses C++ and they don't mention that
on their website either.
In fact, it'd smell fishy to me if a non-IT company would talk about
the programming languages they use on their public website. Do they
also mention their favorite office coffee percolator or the car brands
of their managers?
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> On 26 Jan 2005 19:26:20 +0100, Matthias <··@spam.pls> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion a better (more strict) criterion would be: If you
> > google "lisp site:www.company.com" without success, remove the link.
>
> I've personally submitted two of these links. Of both of the
> companies I know positively that they still use Lisp but you won't
> find out by visiting their website or searching Google. On the other
> hand, one of the companies also uses C++ and they don't mention that
> on their website either.
>
> In fact, it'd smell fishy to me if a non-IT company would talk about
> the programming languages they use on their public website. Do they
> also mention their favorite office coffee percolator or the car brands
> of their managers?
That's exactly what I meant by saying:
> > So even if they use it, they don't tell because their customers
> > don't care.
So from an advertising viewpoint linking to sites of companies using
lisp is not going to help. Maybe it's useful if someone is looking
for a job.
Matthias <··@spam.pls> writes:
> A better idea is to ask developers/managers etc. for success stories
> and put _these_ on _your_ web site. So there are no links that can
Feel free to work on this.
> enough. In my opinion a better (more strict) criterion would be: If
> you google "lisp site:www.company.com" without success, remove the
> link. This would make the page quite a bit shorter but it might leave
> a better impression with the reader.
It's a Wiki: you can do that yourself.
Paolo
--
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (see also http://clrfi.alu.org):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
Marco Parrone <·····@autistici.org> writes:
> Paolo Amoroso on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:34:44 +0100 writes:
>
>> The above page was originally part of the currently spam-flooded and
>> muribund ALU CLiki site:
>>
>> http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
>
> Do you know if the spammer is a bot or an human?
Dan Barlow may be able to tell something about this. In some cases, I
got the impression that the spammers were human--or maybe sub-human :)
Paolo
--
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (see also http://clrfi.alu.org):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface