··················@hotmail.com writes:
> I just got through Gentle introduction to symbolic computation
> from Touretzky. No i need some good book 4 CLOS.
> Any suggestions?
Keene is good. I didn't like Slade at all. I'm sure other people
will recommend Peter Seibel's book, but Keene is specifically a good
introduction to CLOS.
Christophe
Zach Beane wrote:
> ··················@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>>Isn't its material outdated?
>
>
> No.
Very helpful. Why doesn't somebidy break down and explain that Common
Lisp has the advantage of being mature, stable, and standardized, unlike
certain other languages that are slowly, painfully emerging from the sea
spewing lava, crumbling, heaving slabs of ideas rising and falling...
sorry. and CLOS is part of the polished, stable, ANSI spec. so what Keen
described then is what we use now. so...
No.
:)
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
"If you plan to enter text which our system might consider to be
obscene, check here to certify that you are old enough to hear the
resulting output." -- Bell Labs text-to-speech interactive Web page
"Zach Beane" <····@xach.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
···················@unnamed.xach.com...
> ··················@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > Isn't its material outdated?
>
> No.
>
> Zach
It depends on your point of view. I'm sure Paul Graham would consider it
outdated :-))
Andreas
"Andreas Thiele" <······@nospam.com> writes:
> "Zach Beane" <····@xach.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ···················@unnamed.xach.com...
>> ··················@hotmail.com writes:
>> > Isn't its material outdated?
>> No.
> It depends on your point of view. I'm sure Paul Graham would consider it
> outdated :-))
Are you speaking about the book, or about CLOS itself ?-)
--drkm
"drkm" <······@fgeorges.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
···················@fgeorges.org...
> "Andreas Thiele" <······@nospam.com> writes:
>
> > "Zach Beane" <····@xach.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > ···················@unnamed.xach.com...
>
> >> ··················@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >> > Isn't its material outdated?
>
> >> No.
>
> > It depends on your point of view. I'm sure Paul Graham would consider it
> > outdated :-))
>
> Are you speaking about the book, or about CLOS itself ?-)
>
> --drkm
Of course, you are right. To be honest, I'm just kidding because I find PGs
thoughts somehow appealing, although I like and use CLOS. Sometimes I use
classes even if structs where sufficient because I find them more
convenient. I'm not deep enough in the functional subject to have any real
evidence for or against PGs rejection of OO.
Andreas
··················@hotmail.com writes:
> Isn't its material outdated?
I don't think so - and even if certain parts of it should have
been overtaken by later events, it is still a *very* good introduction
to CLOS.
--
Raymond Wiker Mail: ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60
Raymond Wiker <·············@fast.no> writes:
> ··················@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > Isn't its material outdated?
>
> I don't think so - and even if certain parts of it should have
> been overtaken by later events, it is still a *very* good introduction
> to CLOS.
>
I read the Keene book last year. I found it very useful.
rif
··················@hotmail.com wrote:
>I just got through Gentle introduction to symbolic computation
>from Touretzky. No i need some good book 4 CLOS.
>Any suggestions?
>I'm in doubt for :
>Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to
>CLOS by Sonya E. Keene
>Looks very very old 1989
Highly recommended, even in 2005
>or
>Object-Oriented Common LISP by Stephen Slade
Not really about CLOS, but one of my favorites
Francis
>
>Description sounds like tutorial to Lisp instead of CLOS
>An introductory tutorial on the object-oriented standard, for use in
>introductory computer science courses with students who already have
>some experience programming in another language.
>
>Includes appendices on CLOS and C++, ASCII character codes, and
>Internet LISP resources. Source code is available online. -- Copyright
>� 1999 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR All rights reserved
--
Francis Leboutte
www.algo.be
··················@hotmail.com writes:
> I'm in doubt for :
> Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to
> CLOS by Sonya E. Keene
Excellent.
> Object-Oriented Common LISP by Stephen Slade
I don't like it. The title was probably devised by a marketroid: the
actual book is about Common Lisp in general, and CLOS only gets minor
coverage.
Also, I found the book boring to death, and never finished it (this is
from someone who loves Lisp).
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools:
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
<··················@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
·····························@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> I'm in doubt for :
> Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to
> CLOS by Sonya E. Keene
> ...
I'd absolutely recommend this book. Comprehensive and easy to read. I like
it.
Andreas
P.S.
> ...
> Looks very very old 1989
> ...
Yes, indeed, I am very sure it was written before the invention of object
orientation.
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:44:17 +0200, <······@nospam.com> wrote:
><··················@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ·····························@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>> I'm in doubt for :
>> Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to
>> CLOS by Sonya E. Keene
>> ...
>> Looks very very old 1989
>> ...
>
> Yes, indeed, I am very sure it was written before the invention of object
> orientation.
Bad guess. CLOS spec is 1988, and is mentioned as a primary reference.
Keene's book is outstanding, has converted the non-OO to the "light"
more than once. Get it thru a library loan if unsure.
--
The LOOP construct is really neat, it's got a lot of knobs to turn!
Don't push the yellow one on the bottom.
GP lisper wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:44:17 +0200, <······@nospam.com> wrote:
> ><··················@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > ·····························@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Looks very very old 1989
> >> ...
> >
> > Yes, indeed, I am very sure it was written before the invention of object
> > orientation.
>
> Bad guess. CLOS spec is 1988, and is mentioned as a primary reference.
> Keene's book is outstanding, has converted the non-OO to the "light"
> more than once. Get it thru a library loan if unsure.
I have to hope Andreas's tongue was firmly in his cheek when he made
that comment. Given that the term is in the title itself, it is a
pretty hard claim to make. On a more serious note, Simula and Smalltalk
predate CLOS as well as the book, by some two decades.
···············@hotmail.com" <············@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
····························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> GP lisper wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:44:17 +0200, <······@nospam.com> wrote:
> > ><··················@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > ·····························@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> Looks very very old 1989
> > >> ...
> > >
> > > Yes, indeed, I am very sure it was written before the invention of
object
> > > orientation.
> >
> > Bad guess. CLOS spec is 1988, and is mentioned as a primary reference.
> > Keene's book is outstanding, has converted the non-OO to the "light"
> > more than once. Get it thru a library loan if unsure.
>
> I have to hope Andreas's tongue was firmly in his cheek when he made
> that comment. Given that the term is in the title itself, it is a
> pretty hard claim to make. On a more serious note, Simula and Smalltalk
> predate CLOS as well as the book, by some two decades.
>
*LOL*
I just forgot a *huge* smiley. I was amused about people considering a 1989
book as *old*!
Andreas
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:16:03 +0200, <······@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ···············@hotmail.com" <············@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ····························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> GP lisper wrote:
>> > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:44:17 +0200, <······@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > ><··················@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > > ·····························@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > >> Looks very very old 1989
>> > >> ...
>> > >
>> > > Yes, indeed, I am very sure it was written before the invention of
> object
>> > > orientation.
>> >
>> > Bad guess. CLOS spec is 1988, and is mentioned as a primary reference.
>> > Keene's book is outstanding, has converted the non-OO to the "light"
>> > more than once. Get it thru a library loan if unsure.
>>
>> I have to hope Andreas's tongue was firmly in his cheek when he made
>> that comment. Given that the term is in the title itself, it is a
>> pretty hard claim to make. On a more serious note, Simula and Smalltalk
>> predate CLOS as well as the book, by some two decades.
>>
>
> *LOL*
>
> I just forgot a *huge* smiley. I was amused about people considering a 1989
> book as *old*!
I think that's why I was so tripped up by your comment. When I got
Keene, you couldn't get me to do anything else until I finished
reading it.
--
The LOOP construct is really neat, it's got a lot of knobs to turn!
Don't push the yellow one on the bottom.
+ "Andreas Thiele" <······@nospam.com>:
| > Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp:
| > A Programmer's Guide to CLOS by Sonya E. Keene
| > ...
|
| I'd absolutely recommend this book. Comprehensive and easy to read.
| I like it.
Me too. The one thing I miss is a discussion of how to build your
own method combinations. But maybe that's described in the AMOP?
It's on this summer's reading list fo me. ...
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote
> The one thing I miss is a discussion of how to build your
> own method combinations. But maybe that's described in
> the AMOP? It's on this summer's reading list fo me. ...
I was annoyed that Keene's book left out defining your own
method combinations. I worked out how to do it from CLtL2
and the hyperspec, and started writing a slightly mad web page
http://alan.crowe.name/clos/define-method-combination.html
that gives away some of the secrets of this esoteric
operator.
Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland
+ Alan Crowe <····@cawtech.freeserve.co.uk>:
| [...] a slightly mad web page
|
| http://alan.crowe.name/clos/define-method-combination.html
|
| that gives away some of the secrets of this esoteric operator.
Hey, that's nice. It gives me enough of an idea of how it hangs
together that maybe I can begin to decipher the CLHS page myself, now.
Thanks.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
"Alan Crowe" <····@cawtech.freeserve.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
···················@cawtech.freeserve.co.uk...
> Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote
> > The one thing I miss is a discussion of how to build your
> > own method combinations. But maybe that's described in
> > the AMOP? It's on this summer's reading list fo me. ...
>
> I was annoyed that Keene's book left out defining your own
> method combinations. I worked out how to do it from CLtL2
> and the hyperspec, and started writing a slightly mad web page
>
> http://alan.crowe.name/clos/define-method-combination.html
>
> that gives away some of the secrets of this esoteric
> operator.
>
> Alan Crowe
> Edinburgh
> Scotland
Are we talking about the same book?
Mine contains chapter
5.7 Defining a New Method Combination Type
Andreas
Andreas Thiele asked
> > I was annoyed that Keene's book left out defining your own
> > method combinations. I worked out how to do it from CLtL2
> > and the hyperspec, and started writing a slightly mad web page
> >
> > http://alan.crowe.name/clos/define-method-combination.html
> >
> > that gives away some of the secrets of this esoteric
> > operator.
>
> Are we talking about the same book?
>
> Mine contains chapter
>
> 5.7 Defining a New Method Combination Type
There are two forms of define-method-combination, a short
one and a long one. The relationship is a bit like the
relationship between define-modify-macro and
get-setf-expansion.
If I recall correctly Kleene explains the short form then
makes a patronising comment about the long form being
complicated and unnecessary, and then stops.
She might very well be right about the long form being
complicated and unnecessary, I don't have the experience to
judge. I'm happy for a book about CLOS to be opinionated and
to get the benefit of the authors experience about which
features are best tucked away in an appendix and forgotten
about. However I expect a specialist book dedicated to CLOS
to be complete.
I personally feel that studying the long form of
define-method-combination was illuminating even if I never
get aroung to using it. It foregrounds the question:
How do I exploit the fact that most of the code for my
new method is already present in existing methods higher
up the class hierarchy?
If I cannot reuse the code with call-next-method or with the
built-in method combinations then I have a choice to
make. Should I try to design a custom method combination or
should I write my new method from scratch? Even if the
built-in method combinations covers every combination worth
using I nevertheless feel that my design benefits from
asking a good question.
Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland