chakri wrote:
> Hi,
> I am new to functional programming.I want to learn either
> lisp or scheme. Which one is better to learn ? ( List/Scheme )
The two languages are quite different, although they look similar.
Scheme has a strong focus on functional programming whereas Lisp (i.e.,
Common Lisp) is a multi-paradigm language that especially allows you to
freely mix functional and object-oriented programming, but also other
programming styles.
You can find an overview of Scheme at
http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-3.html#%25_chap_Temp_3
and an overview of Common Lisp at http://www.lisp.org/table/objects.htm
For learning Common Lisp, you can find resources at
http://lisp.tech.coop/ and especially http://lisp.tech.coop/Education
For learning Scheme, try http://www.schemers.org/ and especially
http://www.schemers.org/Documents/#all-texts
Pascal
--
2nd European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
July 26 - Glasgow, Scotland - co-located with ECOOP 2005
http://lisp-ecoop05.bknr.net/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> You can find an overview of Scheme at
> http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-3.html#%25_chap_Temp_3
> and an overview of Common Lisp at http://www.lisp.org/table/objects.htm
>
> For learning Common Lisp, you can find resources at
> http://lisp.tech.coop/ and especially http://lisp.tech.coop/Education
>
> For learning Scheme, try http://www.schemers.org/ and especially
> http://www.schemers.org/Documents/#all-texts
You mentioned functional programming. I would strongly recommending
having a look at srfi-1. srfi-1 covers a whole lot of functions and
practices common among functional programming languages:
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-1/srfi-1.html
Schneewittchen
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
>
> For learning Common Lisp, you can find resources at
> http://lisp.tech.coop/ and especially http://lisp.tech.coop/Education
And even more so at <http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/>, which is an
extremely good book (which I'm glad to have bought in hardcopy).
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
This is the day which the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.
chakri wrote:
> Hi,
> I am new to functional programming.I want to learn either
> lisp or scheme. Which one is better to learn ? ( List/Scheme )
>
Common Lisp has a better connection to the past. This means its the result
of its creator's and user's experiences. I started out learning Scheme (about
1980) but switched to CL after I discovered that the Scheme implementations
kept trying to reinvent the wheel (adding CLOS like object systems, macros,
structures, modules (packages), compilers). This reinvention, for me, is mostly
political, they *wannabe* but don't *wannabe*.
CL is also different than Scheme *deep* down. I think this is epitomized by
how SYMBOLs differ between Scheme and CL.
But what it comes down to is what YOU want to learn. One of the Lisp tests
is that you make active and conscious decisions (and be able to discern
fact from hype, essence from fluff) and take responsibility for your own
direction. (But you have already made your decision)
Wade
"chakri" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
> I am new to functional programming.I want to learn either
> lisp or scheme. Which one is better to learn ? ( List/Scheme )
Scheme has been designed to be useful for teaching. It's small,
consistent, logically designed. It can be learned in a very short
time. Good textbooks (on programming, using scheme) are "How to
design programs" and "Structure and Interpretation of Computer
Programs", both available online.
Common Lisp has more features and is more targeted toward practical
programming. It has a much larger "standard library" and more support
for large-scale projects. Mastering CL takes a long time (but you can
be productive without being a master). Good books are "Ansi Common
Lisp" and "Practical Common Lisp" (the later is online).
In my opinion, CL and scheme are not so much different that looking
into both is not worth the effort.
chakri wrote:
>Hi,
> I am new to functional programming.I want to learn either
>lisp or scheme. Which one is better to learn ? ( List/Scheme )
>
>
>
Tools, libraries, platform support, standards, critical mass, and
potential to make money are all better on Common Lisp. Which is why
I've jumped ship. Even dumping Windows so that I can use an open source
Lisp, for now. I'll port back to Windows later, when I'm better
funded. I've banged my head against functional programming a lot, and
so far I've found its advantages esoteric. Whereas my tools, libraries,
platform support, standards, critical mass, and potential to make money
problems are quite concrete!
If you want to be practical, go with Common Lisp. If you just want to
learn, it doesn't matter. Do either.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
When no one else sells courage, supply and demand take hold.
justinhj wrote:
>Brandon
>
>You can use the free CLisp with cygwin on windows.
>
>
CLISP is the interpreted one, right? Yeah, I could, but I want better
performance than that. It might be reasonable to use it as a test
target though, if the builds and APIs aren't hard to maintain. I will
cross that bridge when/if I come to it.
IIRC, GNU Common Lisp is the compiled one. I didn't really contemplate
it deeply on Windows. Now, why didn't I do that? Was it standards, was
it licensing? I can't remember. I'm definitely winning on Linux as far
as packages and builds though. Lotsa stuff I can get off the shelf, it
just works, and I don't have to play build engineer all week. I
definitely think moving from Bigloo Scheme to Common Lisp is the correct
move. Didn't really think too hard about Linux vs. Windows... it just
seemed like the best open source Common Lisp ports were available on
Linux, not Windows. People always seem to say they support and test
their packages on CMUCL or SBCL, not GCL.
Also there is this strategic problem. Most open source developers hate
Windows and won't support it well. I'm tired of pissing in the wind on
that one. Cygwin is ok, but if that's your universe, why bother? Just
do Linux. It's a chore to get rid of the Cygwin licensing limitations.
For
all intents and purposes, I was already forced into completely
GNU-toolchain programming. Might as well get the best support for it.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
I'm doing Linux because I'm cheap.
"Good, Fast, Cheap - pick any two."
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> I'm tired of pissing in the wind on that one.
Yep, a man's gotta give careful consideration to
the reason he gives for pissing in the wind.
Will
William D Clinger wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>
>>I'm tired of pissing in the wind on that one.
>>
>>
>
>Yep, a man's gotta give careful consideration to
>the reason he gives for pissing in the wind.
>
>
Heh, well at least people can fathom my move from Windows to Linux!
Building open source stuff on Windows is way too labor intensive. So
many stacked dependencies.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
- Ed McKenzie
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> IIRC, GNU Common Lisp is the compiled one. I didn't really contemplate
> it deeply on Windows. Now, why didn't I do that? Was it standards, was
> it licensing? I can't remember. I'm definitely winning on Linux as far
> as packages and builds though. Lotsa stuff I can get off the shelf, it
> just works, and I don't have to play build engineer all week. I
> definitely think moving from Bigloo Scheme to Common Lisp is the correct
> move. Didn't really think too hard about Linux vs. Windows... it just
> seemed like the best open source Common Lisp ports were available on
> Linux, not Windows. People always seem to say they support and test
> their packages on CMUCL or SBCL, not GCL.
But don't you want to make a living writing games in Lisp? Then
why don't you ask the commercial vendors (Franz, Lispworks) for
their offerings? AFAIK they are fast and good, and cost
("investment") shouldn't really be a problem.
Of course if the cmu or sbcl ports are coming along nicely, and do
what you want, that's a solution, too.
--
Don't let school interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> But don't you want to make a living writing games in Lisp? Then
> why don't you ask the commercial vendors (Franz, Lispworks) for
> their offerings? AFAIK they are fast and good, and cost
> ("investment") shouldn't really be a problem.
>
> Of course if the cmu or sbcl ports are coming along nicely, and do
> what you want, that's a solution, too.
Brandom seems not being an idiot. Hence it is a miracle for me why he
insists on not writing any single line of code in any of his pet
languages. Surely, one might often say something about a programming
language and paradigm even if he has only a superficial knowledge of
the details. However, nobody was successful in convincing Brandon up to
now to write at least some code.
I do not understand why he does not move on or back to C++. I mean if
he is more the salesman and marketing guy and does not like to write
own code who will stop him in employing tons of C++ programmers for his
business model?
A person not familar in OCaml, or Scheme, or CommonLisp, or Clean, or
etc. will have to invest a lot of learning months for getting used to
even the slightest principles in the particular paradigm. Stroustrup
says that getting comfortable with C++ takes 6 to 12 months of constant
usage every day. I estimate the same amount of time for Scheme and
Ocaml.
Cane Creek Postseat
F�rster vom Silberwald wrote:
>
>Brandom seems not being an idiot. Hence it is a miracle for me why he
>insists on not writing any single line of code in any of his pet
>languages. Surely, one might often say something about a programming
>language and paradigm even if he has only a superficial knowledge of
>the details. However, nobody was successful in convincing Brandon up to
>now to write at least some code.
>
>
Do you have any idea how long it takes to chase down tools and builds
issues? Especially when you're not paid to do any of it?
>I do not understand why he does not move on or back to C++.
>
Then you can't really think.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>> IIRC, GNU Common Lisp is the compiled one. I didn't really
>> contemplate it deeply on Windows. Now, why didn't I do that? Was it
>> standards, was it licensing? I can't remember. I'm definitely
>> winning on Linux as far as packages and builds though. Lotsa stuff I
>> can get off the shelf, it just works, and I don't have to play build
>> engineer all week. I definitely think moving from Bigloo Scheme to
>> Common Lisp is the correct move. Didn't really think too hard about
>> Linux vs. Windows... it just seemed like the best open source Common
>> Lisp ports were available on Linux, not Windows. People always seem
>> to say they support and test their packages on CMUCL or SBCL, not GCL.
>
>
> But don't you want to make a living writing games in Lisp?
Sure I do. But it'll be awhile before I see any revenue from that.
> Then why don't you ask the commercial vendors (Franz, Lispworks) for
> their offerings? AFAIK they are fast and good, and cost
> ("investment") shouldn't really be a problem.
Well, cost is a problem right now. If I had that dough handy, I'd be
handing it over to the landlord. I'll worry about Franz or Lispworks on
Windows later, if I need to. There is that guy working on the CMUCL
port. Maybe there will be some progress by the time I have something
worth shipping. Maybe by then I'll have the Lisp skills needed to help
with the port.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
"Brandon J. Van Every" <·····················@mycompanyname.com> writes:
> justinhj wrote:
>
>>Brandon
>>
>>You can use the free CLisp with cygwin on windows.
>>
>>
> CLISP is the interpreted one, right?
No. clisp contains a compiler, just as cmucl and ecl have one too.
> IIRC, GNU Common Lisp is the compiled one.
More or less. AFAIK, gcl doesn't contain a compiler, just a C code
generator, and it relies on gcc to compile. Happily, this is all well
hidden to the casual user.
> Also there is this strategic problem. Most open source developers
> hate Windows and won't support it well. I'm tired of pissing in the
> wind on that one.
Yep. I too have a grip: Most proprietary developers (both software and
hardware) "hate" Linux and won't support t well. I too am quite tired...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>"Brandon J. Van Every" <·····················@mycompanyname.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>justinhj wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Brandon
>>>
>>>You can use the free CLisp with cygwin on windows.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>CLISP is the interpreted one, right?
>>
>>
>
>No. clisp contains a compiler, just as cmucl and ecl have one too.
>
>
Native compiler? I'm thinking not. I keep forgetting that "compiler"
is not synonymous with "native" in many people's minds.
>>IIRC, GNU Common Lisp is the compiled one.
>>
>>
>
>More or less. AFAIK, gcl doesn't contain a compiler, just a C code
>generator, and it relies on gcc to compile. Happily, this is all well
>hidden to the casual user.
>
>
I suppose Lisp -->C invokes the usual Cygwin licensing difficulties, or
MinGW build headaches. From a support standpoint, I think moving to
Linux is still the correct move for now. Also, I'm remembering the
dealbreaker now. No UFFI support! At least, it's not listed as
supported at http://uffi.b9.com/platforms.html . Is the listing correct?
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
> CLISP is the interpreted one, right? Yeah, I could, but I want better
> performance than that. It might be reasonable to use it as a test
> target though, if the builds and APIs aren't hard to maintain. I will
> cross that bridge when/if I come to it.
It's byte code compiled. I've not really done anything that I've needed
native compilation for yet.
I would say if you're planning on selling a game written in lisp then
you would be best off buying one of the commercial lisp packages like
allegro, since it has native compilation and you can distribute your
games without the source code.
I'm pretty sure if you used CLISP for a commercial program you would
have to ship the source code with it? Also you'd need the cygwin.dll to
run it on win32 and I'm not sure what the licensing implications of
that are, could anyone remind me?
You could also consider MIT Scheme. That has native compilation on
Win32. You'd just need to hook up an interface to directx or opengl.
Again I'm not sure if you would have to give away source.
justinhj wrote:
>>CLISP is the interpreted one, right? Yeah, I could, but I want better
>>performance than that. It might be reasonable to use it as a test
>>target though, if the builds and APIs aren't hard to maintain. I will
>>cross that bridge when/if I come to it.
>>
>>
>
>It's byte code compiled. I've not really done anything that I've needed
>native compilation for yet.
>
>I would say if you're planning on selling a game written in lisp then
>you would be best off buying one of the commercial lisp packages like
>allegro, since it has native compilation and you can distribute your
>games without the source code.
>
>
>
Yes; or, CMUCL / SBCL ports may be far enough along when I'm getting
ready to ship, that I could help push 'em over the edge.
>I'm pretty sure if you used CLISP for a commercial program you would
>have to ship the source code with it?
>
Hrm, CLISP uses GNU Readline, which is a GPL poison pill.
http://clisp.cons.org/faq.html#gpl However, it looks like one could
dance around these issues somehow. I won't be shipping with a bytecoded
Lisp anyways, though.
>Also you'd need the cygwin.dll to
>run it on win32 and I'm not sure what the licensing implications of
>that are, could anyone remind me?
>
>
If you get stuck with needing cygwin1.dll, hey presto your code is now
GPL. You can compile without it, but the problem is, the Cygwin
toolchain has many stacked libraries that are built with it by default.
So you've got this huge build engineering job to contend with to get rid
of cygwin1.dll. That's worth it if you already have some code you know
you want to ship, but it's a damn dodge of a task to take up front. I
was willing to deal with Cygwin and defer the cygwin1.dll purge issue.
Cygwin, unlike MinGW, has the virtue of being well packaged and heavily
used by lotsa people, so it actually works. MinGW environments are damn
difficult to reproduce, there's so much build labor involved because
it's the *Minimalist* GNU for Windows. The reality of GNU toolchains is
you typically need tons and tons of stacked libraries, there's nothing
minimalist about it at all.
>You could also consider MIT Scheme. That has native compilation on
>Win32. You'd just need to hook up an interface to directx or opengl.
>Again I'm not sure if you would have to give away source.
>
>
>
I am moving to the more supported and standardized Common Lisp universe
for now. In particular, Scheme has no credible equivalent to UFFI.
Apparently, almost nobody likes "SRFI 50: Mixing Scheme and C."
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-50/ Some have even wondered why it's
still listed as 'draft' status and hasn't been withdrawn.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Brandon's Law (after Godwin's Law):
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
a person being called a troll approaches one RAPIDLY."
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Tools, libraries, platform support, standards, critical mass, and
> potential to make money are all better on Common Lisp.
Why is the potential to make money better on Common Lisp?
Schneewittchen
F�rster vom Silberwald wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>
>
>>Tools, libraries, platform support, standards, critical mass, and
>>potential to make money are all better on Common Lisp.
>>
>>
>
>Why is the potential to make money better on Common Lisp?
>
>
That's how the marketplace looks from where I sit. I'm too tired to
argue details.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> That's how the marketplace looks from where I sit. I'm too tired to
> argue details.
If you had the dose of sleep could you please, as a marketing guy,
elaborate why you feel or think the marketplace looks brighther for
Common Lisp and how the way of marketplace and "potential money" works
together. The latter makes we wondering. I mean what actually impedes
you (let aside all the technical details) from developing your idea in
lets say Scheme or OCaml. I do not understand why they do not share the
"potential" for making ones living (money wise).
Btw: you once as you called it "ship jumping" from Common Lisp to
Scheme, OCaml, etc. Why the jump back now to Common Lisp?
Schneewittchen mit einer Dose Sensodyne Zahnspül-Lösung für
schmerzempfindliche Zähne
F�rster vom Silberwald wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>> That's how the marketplace looks from where I sit. I'm too tired to
>> argue details.
>
> If you had the dose of sleep could you please, as a marketing guy,
> elaborate why you feel or think the marketplace looks brighther for
> Common Lisp and how the way of marketplace and "potential money" works
> together. The latter makes we wondering. I mean what actually impedes
> you (let aside all the technical details) from developing your idea in
> lets say Scheme or OCaml. I do not understand why they do not share the
> "potential" for making ones living (money wise).
>
> Btw: you once as you called it "ship jumping" from Common Lisp to
> Scheme, OCaml, etc. Why the jump back now to Common Lisp?
Three words: Cyclic Markovian Process
I just tried to help Brandom, but he's in denial:
"Instead, what you seem to be doing is the following: you don't have a
utility function (or what you have does not map to R^1). Instead of picking
a language, you seem to be running in circles of perpetual indecision: you
compare language X to language Y, and say Y is better because of F1 and F2,
so "screw X", then you compare Y and Z and decide that Y sucks because of
F3 and F4 relative to Z, however then you realize that Z sucks even
compared to the sucky language X because of F5 and F6, and so on. "
alex goldman wrote:
>F�rster vom Silberwald wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Btw: you once as you called it "ship jumping" from Common Lisp to
>>Scheme, OCaml, etc. Why the jump back now to Common Lisp?
>>
>>
>
>Three words: Cyclic Markovian Process
>
>I just tried to help Brandom, but he's in denial:
>
>
>
Alex, you're not trying to help. You're trying to assert your own point
of view, without actually dealing with my problem domains in the
slightest. I posted an answer to your earlier questions / assertions on
comp.lang.functional, and you have conveniently ignored them. It blows
my mind that anyone would see the extremely rational and incremental
decision of moving from Bigloo Scheme to Common Lisp as some kind of
uber-waffling. What real world are you living in?
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT BRANDON J. VAN EVERY BEFORE REPLYING TO
ONE OF HIS POSTS
1. He has never designed any game, nor contributed to the design of
any game, which has ever seen the light of day, despite referring
to himself as a "game designer." (In rebuttal, he pointed out his
"one complete game" from "1983" on the "Atari 800" which he showed
to his "8th grade math teacher.")
2. He has never been employed in the game industry, in any way,
shape, manner or form. Despite this, for some reason he managed
to get named as an Independent Games Festival judge; a curious
turn of events, since their stated intent is to appoint
"professionals in the game industry" (their quote, not his).
3. In fact, the only programming job he had listed on his resume was
for only "2 years" ending in "1998," working in C and assembly on
a graphics driver, as a "Sr. Software Engineer" -- a curious
title, since this was his first (and only) job in the software
industry. There is no evidence he has used C++, nor any other
language, professionally. (And the company in question is
defunct, anyway, so there is no way to verify his claim.)
4. The other jobs he has mentioned having after this one and only
items on his resume are: "yard maintenance work," "painting
apartments," "scrubbing floors," "sub minimum wage signature
gathering," and working for "$5/hour at a Vietnamese restaurant."
5. The only personal project he actually wrote code for and made
available in some manner was Free3d, a software 3D rendering
engine. Stating that its goals were to be "100% efficient, 100%
portable" and to release it in a "one year time frame," which he
started in "1993" and abandoned in "1996," admitting that it
"barely drew even a single polygon" and "did hardly anything in
the 3D department."
6. Almost every Internet community (Usenet newsgroup, mailing list,
etc.) he has ever introduced himself to has resulted in him
repeating the same pattern: asking leading questions, demanding
people do things his way, becoming hostile, annoying the other
participants, alienating them, and finally leaving in disgust.
7. Of the projects (open source and otherwise) whose communities he
has (briefly) joined, he has never contributed anything tangible
in terms of code or documentation.
8. The project he has intermittently claimed to be working on, Ocean
Mars, is vaporware -- and is one of his admitted "failures." He
allegedly sunk "nine months of full time 60 hours/week" and about
"$80K" into it (at least; he "stopped counting") with only a
"spherical hexified icosahedron" display to show for it (only
allegedly, since it has never been shown or demonstrated
publicly).
9. Since his embarassing frustration with his Ocean Mars project, he
has decided that C and C++ aren't "worth anything as a resume
skill anymore," and embarked on a quest in 2003 to find a
high-level language that will suit his needs. After more than a
year, at least ten languages, and not having even "written a line
of code" in any of them, he still has yet to find a language that
will suit him.
10. Finally, despite vehemently insisting that he is not a troll, many
people quite understandingly have great difficulty distinguishing
his public behavior from that of a troll.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> It blows
> my mind that anyone would see the extremely rational and incremental
> decision of moving from Bigloo Scheme to Common Lisp as some kind of
> uber-waffling.
I'm not questioning your /specific/ reasons to move from one language to
another. They may be good, or they may be bad. That's not the point.
Read what I wrote again. If whenever you realize that there exists a feature
F that is better in language Y than in language X, you move from X to Y,
you will continue your journey through languages like a dog chasing its
tail.
alex goldman wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>
>
>>It blows
>>my mind that anyone would see the extremely rational and incremental
>>decision of moving from Bigloo Scheme to Common Lisp as some kind of
>>uber-waffling.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not questioning your /specific/ reasons to move from one language to
>another. They may be good, or they may be bad. That's not the point.
>
>Read what I wrote again. If whenever you realize that there exists a feature
>F that is better in language Y than in language X, you move from X to Y,
>you will continue your journey through languages like a dog chasing its
>tail.
>
>
>
Look dude when you ship a commercial game on Windows using some HLL
technology, I'll listen to how easy it's all supposed to be. Otherwise,
you're just criticizing without actually walking in my shoes.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> alex goldman wrote:
>
>>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It blows
>>>my mind that anyone would see the extremely rational and incremental
>>>decision of moving from Bigloo Scheme to Common Lisp as some kind of
>>>uber-waffling.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm not questioning your /specific/ reasons to move from one language to
>>another. They may be good, or they may be bad. That's not the point.
>>
>>Read what I wrote again. If whenever you realize that there exists a
>>feature F that is better in language Y than in language X, you move from X
>>to Y, you will continue your journey through languages like a dog chasing
>>its tail.
>>
>>
>>
> Look dude when you ship a commercial game on Windows using some HLL
> technology, I'll listen to how easy it's all supposed to be. Otherwise,
> you're just criticizing without actually walking in my shoes.
This isn't about games. This is about writing 1 LOC or more in 2 years of
trolling (or whatever you prefer to call that) FP community.
Of the languages you "looked at" in the past two years (i.e. OCaml, Scheme,
Lisp, Clean and probably more), is there at least /ONE/ in which you can do
even the simplest stuff, like reading numbers from a file and adding them?
Anyways, helping you seems to be too big a challenge for me.
alex goldman wrote:
>Anyways, helping you seems to be too big a challenge for me.
>
>
Yes, because you don't basically get that there's a whole "design and
tools and infrastructure and business" way of looking at problems rather
than just coughing out code. I implement when I can actually get my
problems done in a particular language. Python just got on my nerves
because it is too slow, and also the marketing stuff didn't go
anywhere. OCaml, simply wouldn't let me do my low level C coding with
ease. Bigloo is scads better in that regard, but it has an awful lot of
basic tools and libraries support burdens to contend with. I'm tired of
that.
I don't know why you think you're helpful. You'd be helpful if you
pointed out the commercial Windows games that got done in these marginal
languages (where "marginal" means "as far as the commercial game
industry is concerned.") Even Python, the most populist of these
languages, doesn't have any 3D game success stories to speak of. It has
gotten used for scripting and game logic only; it is not suitable for 3D
engine cores.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> You'd be helpful if you
> pointed out the commercial Windows games that got done in these marginal
> languages (where "marginal" means "as far as the commercial game
> industry is concerned.")
Your stated goal was to pioneer using those marginal languages and make the
sheep see the light. Now you want to be one of the sheep too?
Again, do you think you could just answer the question, I'm not asking for
much here: Of the languages you "looked at" in the past two years (i.e.
OCaml, Scheme, Lisp, Clean and probably more), is there at least ONE in
which you can do even the simplest stuff, like reading numbers from a file
and adding them?
alex goldman wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>
>
>> You'd be helpful if you
>>pointed out the commercial Windows games that got done in these marginal
>>languages (where "marginal" means "as far as the commercial game
>>industry is concerned.")
>>
>>
>
>Your stated goal was to pioneer using those marginal languages and make the
>sheep see the light. Now you want to be one of the sheep too?
>
>
What are you on about? My plan is to develop with Common Lisp on Linux,
then ship on Windows. I'm just deferring either the purchase of Franz
Lisp or aiding the CMUCL or SBCL porting projects. Why take such
burdens up front? I've been taking way, way too many open source
maintenance burdens up front.
>Again, do you think you could just answer the question, I'm not asking for
>much here: Of the languages you "looked at" in the past two years (i.e.
>OCaml, Scheme, Lisp, Clean and probably more), is there at least ONE in
>which you can do even the simplest stuff, like reading numbers from a file
>and adding them?
>
>
Maybe you haven't figured it out. I don't care about your question.
Here's a partial matrix of what I care about:
Python OCaml Bigloo
Scheme CMUCL
high performance no yes
yes yes
excellent C FFI no no
yes yes
working OpenGL binding yes yes no yes
You might notice that this matrix has a sort of "00, 01, 10, 11" quality
about it. Have you figured out yet why it takes a long time to chug
through implementations? With each new guinea pig, I've gotten closer
to figuring out what actually matters for my problems. You deride such
searches as "Markovian," which is silly.
Now here's a question for you, that I wager you don't care about. Can
you tell me, off the cuff at this exact moment in time, what the
tradeoffs of at least 20 language implementations are? Can you build a
matrix of it, right now? Now, how long did it take you to acquire this
information?
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Maybe you haven't figured it out. I don't care about your question.
> Here's a partial matrix of what I care about:
>
> Python OCaml Bigloo Scheme CMUCL
> high performance no yes yes yes
> excellent C FFI no no yes yes
> working OpenGL binding yes yes no yes
[I think/guess/not_sure they have a working OpenGL binding on Bigloo
for Linux]
Yes this group is all about Lisp, though, it might interest CMUCL
coders when you look at the above table. However, can you explain
briefly why Python has a crippled C foreign function interface? I am
not fond of Python and would not touch it voluntarily. Although does
not Python offer a lot of facilities for dealing with the outside
world?
> Now here's a question for you, that I wager you don't care about. Can
> you tell me, off the cuff at this exact moment in time, what the
> tradeoffs of at least 20 language implementations are? Can you build a
> matrix of it, right now? Now, how long did it take you to acquire this
> information?
That shouldn't be so hard I guess at least for some of the languages.
However, assigning tradeoffs is a two sided sword. Wasn't you one who
decided that functional languages/paradigns do not have any virtue
right now?
Schneewittchen
F�rster vom Silberwald wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>
>
>>Maybe you haven't figured it out. I don't care about your question.
>>Here's a partial matrix of what I care about:
>>
>> Python OCaml Bigloo Scheme CMUCL
>>high performance no yes yes yes
>>excellent C FFI no no yes yes
>>working OpenGL binding yes yes no yes
>>
>>
>
>[I think/guess/not_sure they have a working OpenGL binding on Bigloo
>for Linux]
>
>
Nope. It's based on GTK 1.2 and a defunct gtkglarea widget. It doesn't
build on the bigloo-lib author's Linux (?) box. The OpenGL support was
never regarded as more than 'experimental'. It is an exemplar I could
start from, but hardly working code.
>Yes this group is all about Lisp, though, it might interest CMUCL
>coders when you look at the above table. However, can you explain
>briefly why Python has a crippled C foreign function interface?
>
The table denotes excellence, not crippledness. No, it has been too
long since I've delved into the innards of Python's C API to explain
anything about it. You might recall it's the language I started with 2
years ago. I just remember it being a tedious PITA and I don't recall
exactly why. It's possible that my perceived needs have changed over
time, and that I evaluated it too stringently.
There are other things not to like about Python, so I have no intention
of revisiting it for 3D graphics or AI problems. I do think it's
appropriate as a communal tools language, and I might use it for that
purpose someday if I need large numbers of programmers and artists to
work on something. I also wouldn't turn down paying work in Python, not
that I have any expertise to offer. There's a trickle of Python jobs in
Seattle, but not enough to make an effort to learn it on my own.
Generally, I won't learn something on my own nickel unless it solves my
problems, and only to the degree that it solves my problems. This kind
of approach is baffling to people like Alex, who probably think the
point of any language is to play with it and code with it. "Deferred
learning" is quite rational, however, if you consider reading docs,
getting builds to work, evaluating benchmarks, chasing down tools and
libraries, understanding communties, and seeking jobs as legitimate
problems.
> I am
>not fond of Python and would not touch it voluntarily. Although does
>not Python offer a lot of facilities for dealing with the outside
>world?
>
>
Python is great as long as you stay inside the Python universe. That
universe doesn't happen to include anything of interest for 3D graphics
or AI. Actual projects end up tying themselvs to C++ by technologies
such as SWIG or Boost. Or in Nebula2's case, by a custom ScriptServer.
Now, hopefully you can imagine what a low opinion I have of any kind of
"C++ and a scripting language" development. If you can't imagine, then
you need to think about how tedious it is to cross clumsy FFIs over and
over again. C++ is such a difficult language to talk to that I've given
up on it entirely, damn the consequences. Even if you do interface to
it, the C++ 3D guys will just keep on writing more and more of the same,
dragging you along with more and more work. You can't win. Just have
to drop C++ like a bad habit.
>That shouldn't be so hard I guess at least for some of the languages.
>However, assigning tradeoffs is a two sided sword. Wasn't you one who
>decided that functional languages/paradigns do not have any virtue
>right now?
>
>
They have limited virtue for my current problems. For instance, I'm
certainly past caring about implementing 3D engine cores in a functional
style. Nice thought but it's just dumb in the face of what commodity 3D
HW actually does. I believe FP is applicable to certain specific
problems and I'll cross those bridges when I come to them. It's FP as a
general purpose cure-all for the ails of computerdom that I decry.
Really, for certain classes of problems that are important to me, it's
quite useless. Some things are more succinctly expressed with state,
whether you can reason about them or not.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
On Usenet, if you're not an open source hippie who
likes to download and play with programming toys
all day long, there's something wrong with you.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> They have limited virtue for my current problems. For instance, I'm
> certainly past caring about implementing 3D engine cores in a functional
> style. Nice thought but it's just dumb in the face of what commodity 3D
> HW actually does. I believe FP is applicable to certain specific
> problems and I'll cross those bridges when I come to them. It's FP as a
> general purpose cure-all for the ails of computerdom that I decry.
> Really, for certain classes of problems that are important to me, it's
> quite useless. Some things are more succinctly expressed with state,
> whether you can reason about them or not.
As it seems you have yourself settled down for learning and utilizing
CMUCL. Which books plan you to buy for learning Common Lisp? Or do you
prefer on-line tutorials? Do you actually write code in CMUCL yet?
I ask it because when I started out to learn Clean I had a very hard
time. The first few months I had absolutely no clue how functional
programming and the paradigms in Clean work. After working through the
Clean book I decided to give up for 6 months after that period though I
started again and it became easier and easier for me to program in
Clean.
That is the reasons why I ask whether you program in CommonLisp yet
since you will have to invest a lot of time for mastering the language.
Förster vom Silberwald
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> alex goldman wrote:
>
>>Again, do you think you could just answer the question, I'm not asking for
>>much here: Of the languages you "looked at" in the past two years (i.e.
>>OCaml, Scheme, Lisp, Clean and probably more), is there at least ONE in
>>which you can do even the simplest stuff, like reading numbers from a file
>>and adding them?
>>
>>
> Maybe you haven't figured it out. I don't care about your question.
this is a discussion forum about Lisp. Feel free to ask everything you
want, but if you can't or don't want to code in Lisp, don't expect that you
can really understand the difference between Lisp and other languages. You
might think that you know it, but without coding in Lisp, you are like an
eyeless person, who knows every physical detail about colors, but you'll
never understand an art painting.
--
Frank Bu�, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>> alex goldman wrote:
>>
>>>Again, do you think you could just answer the question, I'm not asking
>>>for much here: Of the languages you "looked at" in the past two years
>>>(i.e. OCaml, Scheme, Lisp, Clean and probably more), is there at least
>>>ONE in which you can do even the simplest stuff, like reading numbers
>>>from a file and adding them?
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe you haven't figured it out. I don't care about your question.
>
> this is a discussion forum about Lisp. Feel free to ask everything you
Don't you worry, he will:
Top 10 questions Brandon will be asking if he actually "commits" to Common
Lisp (not bloody likely):
10. How do I make executables from CMUCL?
9. How do I make them deliverable on Windows?
8. Is there a Lisp with C syntax?
7. WTF is #' ?
6. Is there a game engine I can use from Lisp?
5. An Open Source one?
4. No, a game engine I can use in my commercial game?
3. Why is Lisp so goddamn slow?
2. Can anyone offer a Lisp job?
1. Join my yahoo group about Lisp, where I'm the leader/moderator, will ya?
> want, but if you can't or don't want to code in Lisp, don't expect that
> you can really understand the difference between Lisp and other languages.
> You might think that you know it, but without coding in Lisp, you are like
> an eyeless person, who knows every physical detail about colors, but
> you'll never understand an art painting.
>
alex goldman wrote:
> Top 10 questions Brandon will be asking if he actually "commits" to Common
> Lisp (not bloody likely):
>
> 10. How do I make executables from CMUCL?
> 9. How do I make them deliverable on Windows?
> 8. Is there a Lisp with C syntax?
> 7. WTF is #' ?
> 6. Is there a game engine I can use from Lisp?
> 5. An Open Source one?
> 4. No, a game engine I can use in my commercial game?
> 3. Why is Lisp so goddamn slow?
I think you're not being honest here. 10 and 9 don't make sense
for now, since there are no CMUCL or SBCL ports for Windows, as it
seems. 3 isn't terribly problematic, either, since Lisp offers
reasonable performance, and given that Brandon wants a good C FFI,
I suppose he won't just use it for linking in foreign libraries,
but also write those key functions in C that would be faster with it.
> 2. Can anyone offer a Lisp job?
I don't think he asked it. I don't think he will.
> 1. Join my yahoo group about Lisp, where I'm the leader/moderator, will ya?
--
Don't let school interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> alex goldman wrote:
>> Top 10 questions Brandon will be asking if he actually "commits" to
>> Common Lisp (not bloody likely):
>>
>> 10. How do I make executables from CMUCL?
>> 9. How do I make them deliverable on Windows?
>> 8. Is there a Lisp with C syntax?
>> 7. WTF is #' ?
>> 6. Is there a game engine I can use from Lisp?
>> 5. An Open Source one?
>> 4. No, a game engine I can use in my commercial game?
>> 3. Why is Lisp so goddamn slow?
>
> I think you're not being honest here. 10 and 9 don't make sense
> for now, since there are no CMUCL or SBCL ports for Windows, as it
> seems. 3 isn't terribly problematic, either, since Lisp offers
> reasonable performance, and given that Brandon wants a good C FFI,
> I suppose he won't just use it for linking in foreign libraries,
> but also write those key functions in C that would be faster with it.
>
>> 2. Can anyone offer a Lisp job?
>
> I don't think he asked it. I don't think he will.
How dare you question my ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy?!
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/efc24ff635d5fdb6?hl=en
>
>> 1. Join my yahoo group about Lisp, where I'm the leader/moderator, will
>> ya?
>
alex goldman wrote:
> 7. WTF is #' ?
Perhaps more like:
``That "#'" thing is utter nonsense. It is techie speak that will never
appeal to us more managerially inclined programmers and professionals of
the gaming industry, who have fixed timelines and have to ship on date.
Our industry is a volatile business. If you want to succeed in it, you
have to try better than that. #' surely isn't going to help here, if
you want fast code, and it isn't very helpful with interfacing to the
latest OpenGL C FFI layers either. Why such burdens up front? I've
spent way too much time with your silly excuses for not coming up with
decent gaming technology and will now look and see if the folks at
comp.lang.tcl are more knowledgable than you people.''
mkb.
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> alex goldman wrote:
>
>
>> 7. WTF is #' ?
>
>
> Perhaps more like:
>
> ``That "#'" thing is utter nonsense. It is techie speak that will never
> appeal to us more managerially inclined programmers and professionals of
> the gaming industry, who have fixed timelines and have to ship on date.
Indeed, & is far more useful in any real object-oriented,
pattern-based code. ;)
Add -> for even better results.
--
Don't let school interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain
alex goldman wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>
>>It blows
>>my mind that anyone would see the extremely rational and incremental
>>decision of moving from Bigloo Scheme to Common Lisp as some kind of
>>uber-waffling.
>
>
> I'm not questioning your /specific/ reasons to move from one language to
> another. They may be good, or they may be bad. That's not the point.
>
> Read what I wrote again. If whenever you realize that there exists a feature
> F that is better in language Y than in language X, you move from X to Y,
> you will continue your journey through languages like a dog chasing its
> tail.
>
Common Lisp is a satisfactory fix-point. Most other language are not
fix-point or satisfactory.
Cheers
--
Marco
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>
> Common Lisp is a satisfactory fix-point. Most other language are not
> fix-point or satisfactory.
Yes, bravo, thank you! It's too bad I don't have your talent for brevity.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>
>>
>> Common Lisp is a satisfactory fix-point. Most other language are not
>> fix-point or satisfactory.
f(f(f(f(f(...))) does not always converge to f's fixpoint. Brandom is one of
those f's. Mark my words.
>
> Yes, bravo, thank you! It's too bad I don't have your talent for brevity.
>
Too bad, indeed.
F�rster vom Silberwald wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>
>
>>That's how the marketplace looks from where I sit. I'm too tired to
>>argue details.
>>
>>
>
>If you had the dose of sleep could you please, as a marketing guy,
>elaborate why you feel or think the marketplace looks brighther for
>Common Lisp and how the way of marketplace and "potential money" works
>together. The latter makes we wondering. I mean what actually impedes
>you (let aside all the technical details) from developing your idea in
>lets say Scheme or OCaml. I do not understand why they do not share the
>"potential" for making ones living (money wise).
>
>
>
For implementing one's own project, or for custom vertical applications
development where one is at liberty to use any language, Lisp vs. Scheme
vs. OCaml doesn't matter. One can use whatever one likes.
For attaching oneself to extant projects with demands for certain
skillsets, I see more Common Lisp projects out there than any kind of
Scheme projects. I see a broader range of applicability and maturity in
Common Lisp than in the Scheme world. For instance, can you show me a
stack of open source technologies appropriate in Scheme for implementing
e-commerce solutions?
I think it's as simple as Common Lisp having more history, more people,
and being more standard.
>Btw: you once as you called it "ship jumping" from Common Lisp to
>Scheme, OCaml, etc. Why the jump back now to Common Lisp?
>
>
>
I have never previously committed to Common Lisp. I investigated it,
and once upon a time inline assemblers were very important to me.
Someone said Corman Lisp sorta had them, but they were only half
implemented, and we had a big debate about why I should pay money for
something that doesn't do what I want. That was a very long time ago.
Since then, my criteria for languages has bent and shifted under the
pressure of how the open source universe really works. Leading to my
current decision, to drop Windows for development purposes, and see it
only as a target shipping platform. This makes the open source support
burden much easier.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
> I have never previously committed to Common Lisp. I investigated it,
> and once upon a time inline assemblers were very important to me.
"And one choice I'm now going to make, is not to continue in this forum
for a time. I did manage to get all my needed technical questions
answered, and certain interpersonal dynamics are not useful. I am also
finding that the comp.lang.asm.x86 crowd has more to say about certain
issues than I might have guessed." (Message-ID:
<···················@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>)
Did the folks at c.l.a.x86 recommend Common Lisp to you, or are you just
upset that they wouldn't want to write your hypothetical game for you
either?
mkb.
Matthias Buelow wrote:
>>I have never previously committed to Common Lisp. I investigated it,
>>and once upon a time inline assemblers were very important to me.
>>
>>
>
>
>"And one choice I'm now going to make, is not to continue in this forum
>for a time. I did manage to get all my needed technical questions
>answered, and certain interpersonal dynamics are not useful. I am also
>finding that the comp.lang.asm.x86 crowd has more to say about certain
>issues than I might have guessed." (Message-ID:
><···················@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>)
>
>
>
This in no way contravenes my statement above. I have been *monitoring*
Common Lisp for suitability for a very long time. I have never
previously committed to it. I never committed to SML/NJ + MLton either,
BTW. But I certainly put some time into chasing down what it was good for.
My list of committment roadkill is:
- C++
- Python
- OCaml
- Bigloo Scheme
>Did the folks at c.l.a.x86 recommend Common Lisp to you,
>
Nope. What they did do, is help me figure out what kind of compiler
technology I'd have to write myself, if I wanted to undertake such a
venture.
>or are you just
>upset that they wouldn't want to write your hypothetical game for you
>either?
>
>
>
Is it really bugging you that I haven't shipped? Are you dying to play
it or something? I mean, you and other people devote incredible amounts
of your personal energy to my every move. Why? I guess somehow I must
be knocking down your sacred cows, or otherwise represent a threat to
your world view. A meme that must be resisted, lest cats and dogs fall
from the sky.
I suppose I do hold and express opinons on controversial subjects. So,
resistance from some quarter is to be expected. I'm just surprised that
for some people, the resistance tends towards the total. Anything and
everything that Brandon J. Van Every says, does, plans, thinks,
implements, changes. What is rational about that? I'm not worthy of
that much attention. My detractors are, in essence, trying to *prove*
that I'm not worthy of such attention - and yet look at the attention
they bestow! I can only surmise that I function as a springboard for
other people's personal needs. Maybe I'm just a "more available"
springboard than the next person who would receive such attention, if I
were not around.
Which is part of why I pull disappearing acts, incidentally. The
contrast between what happens when I'm here or not here, informs some
people about the nature of what's going on.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"witch-hunt" - (noun) (Date: 1885)
1: a searching out for persecution of persons accused
of witchcraft
2: the searching out and deliberate harassment of
those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
- witch-hunter (noun)
- witch-hunting (noun or adjective)
"Brandon J. Van Every" <·····················@mycompanyname.com> writes:
> I guess somehow I must
> be knocking down your sacred cows, or otherwise represent a threat to
> your world view. A meme that must be resisted, lest cats and dogs fall
> from the sky.
Have you considered that maybe you're just really annoying?
> Which is part of why I pull disappearing acts, incidentally.
For this, I can't wait.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>Have you considered that maybe you're just really annoying?
>
>
>
Are you easily annoyed?
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Does your Myers Briggs Type Indicator determine how you
debate? http://www.personalitypage.com/
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Is it really bugging you that I haven't shipped? Are you dying to play
> it or something? I mean, you and other people devote incredible amounts
> of your personal energy to my every move. Why? I guess somehow I must
Rest assured that I do not expend "incredible amounts" of energy on you.
I've replied to perhaps a handful of your numerous and lengthy postings
on various newsgroups because they popped up under my eyes in close
proximity to some thread I was reading.
> be knocking down your sacred cows, or otherwise represent a threat to
> your world view. A meme that must be resisted, lest cats and dogs fall
> from the sky.
I think you're aggrandizing yourself.
mkb.
Matthias Buelow wrote:
>Rest assured that I do not expend "incredible amounts" of energy on you.
> I've replied to perhaps a handful of your numerous and lengthy postings
>on various newsgroups because they popped up under my eyes in close
>proximity to some thread I was reading.
>
>
Why do you bother to respond at all?
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> I guess somehow I must
> be knocking down your sacred cows, or otherwise represent a threat to
> your world view. A meme that must be resisted, lest cats and dogs fall
> from the sky.
Which would be horrid indeed.
At one time a whale fell from the sky: http://perp.com/whale/
--
Don't let school interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> > A meme that must be resisted, lest cats and dogs fall
> > from the sky.
>
> Which would be horrid indeed.
>
> At one time a whale fell from the sky: http://perp.com/whale/
I am absolutely not making this incident up; in fact
I have it all on videotape....I am probably not guilty
of understatement when I say that what follows, on the
videotape, is the most wonderful event in the history
of the universe....
Dave Barry