I stumbled across some files produced by Rational Rose, a modelling
tool that dabbles in things such as UML diagrams and surprisingly
enough it had an SEXP format.
A description of the format can be found here
http://crazybeans.sourceforge.net/CrazyBeans/doc/grammar.pdf
Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises, it
almost cannot be an accident.
Does anybody know if Rational Rose has any kind of Lisp heritage?
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | christian ··@ defun #\. dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Christian Lynbech <·········@defun.dk> writes:
> I stumbled across some files produced by Rational Rose, a modelling
> tool that dabbles in things such as UML diagrams and surprisingly
> enough it had an SEXP format.
>
> A description of the format can be found here
>
> http://crazybeans.sourceforge.net/CrazyBeans/doc/grammar.pdf
>
> Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises, it
> almost cannot be an accident.
>
> Does anybody know if Rational Rose has any kind of Lisp heritage?
Not that I know. Sexps come back to the OMTool (from Martin Marietta,
Inc.) more than 15 years ago. IIRC, it was not written in lisp but
in Smalltalk. Rumbaugh then came to Rational. The sexprs were only
used as an internal data format.
The point is that it's a damn good idea to use sexprs, a "competitive
advantage".
Also you can see it as Greenspun Tenth Law in action...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
This is a signature virus. Add me to your signature and help me to live
Christian Lynbech wrote:
>Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises,
>
Pardon if I'm triggering an old saw / old flame. But I'm wondering,
when a Lisper refers to "the world's attitude towards parentheses," if
they're speaking literally about the world's taste in syntax, or
metaphorically about the world's taste in semantics. Coming to the
Scheme / Lisp worlds from a strongly imperative standpoint, I found it
odd that despite all the hubbub, I found no reason to object to
parentheses as syntax. There's a slight readability issue, but nothing
more than that, and it is solved with proper editing tools. On the
other hand, I have found many, many, many reasons to object to
Functional Programming idioms. It has become quite clear to me that FP
is what most of the world objects to, not mere syntax. Every programmer
I've ever spoken to, is plenty smart enough to handle issues of mere
'syntactic sugar'. But people balk when you ask them to put their
brains on backwards.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"Troll" - (n.) Anything you don't like.
Usage: "He's just a troll."
From: Maks Romih
Subject: Re: the world's attitude towards parentheses (was Re: Has Rational Rose a Lisp history?)
Date:
Message-ID: <u4qchte8r.fsf@snt.si>
Pardon me too if I dare to theorize a little. I'm still in the phase
of adopting Lisp and far from being a Lisp old cat.
I agree that parentheses themselves are not so notorious.
Does Lisp really ask one to "put their brains on backwards"?
Maybe it's even the quality of Lisp, that it doesn't hinder you, when
you would like or need to go backwards.
But Lisp forces you much less to use functional style than other
languages are forcing you to think imperatively. You can code quite
smoothly imperatively and with side effects in Lisp, but you would
break your teeth doing something functional in Java or C++. There are
some experiments with functional idioms, for example, in STL, but are
clumsy much, much, much more than writing setq and a pair of
parentheses in Lisp.
Maks.
"Brandon J. Van Every" <·····················@mycompanyname.com> writes:
> Christian Lynbech wrote:
>
> >Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this wrong plural intentional? To show, that the rest of world
doesn't even know how to spell the sacred word?
> >
> Pardon if I'm triggering an old saw / old flame. But I'm wondering,
> when a Lisper refers to "the world's attitude towards parentheses," if
> they're speaking literally about the world's taste in syntax, or
> metaphorically about the world's taste in semantics. Coming to the
> Scheme / Lisp worlds from a strongly imperative standpoint, I found it
> odd that despite all the hubbub, I found no reason to object to
> parentheses as syntax. There's a slight readability issue, but
> nothing more than that, and it is solved with proper editing tools.
> On the other hand, I have found many, many, many reasons to object to
> Functional Programming idioms. It has become quite clear to me that
> FP is what most of the world objects to, not mere syntax. Every
> programmer I've ever spoken to, is plenty smart enough to handle
> issues of mere 'syntactic sugar'. But people balk when you ask them
> to put their brains on backwards.
>
> --
> Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
> Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
>
> "Troll" - (n.) Anything you don't like.
> Usage: "He's just a troll."
On 02 Jun 2005 09:22:12 +0200, <·····@snt.si> wrote:
>
> Pardon me too if I dare to theorize a little. I'm still in the phase
> of adopting Lisp and far from being a Lisp old cat.
>
> I agree that parentheses themselves are not so notorious.
What parentheses?
--
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly fine.
From: Maks Romih
Subject: Re: the world's attitude towards parentheses (was Re: Has Rational Rose a Lisp history?)
Date:
Message-ID: <ur7flqgmr.fsf@snt.si>
GP lisper <········@CloudDancer.com> writes:
> On 02 Jun 2005 09:22:12 +0200, <·····@snt.si> wrote:
> >
> > Pardon me too if I dare to theorize a little. I'm still in the phase
> > of adopting Lisp and far from being a Lisp old cat.
> >
> > I agree that parentheses themselves are not so notorious.
>
> What parentheses?
>
Round brackets, used in Lisp.
>
> --
> With sufficient thrust, pigs fly fine.
Maks Romih <·····@snt.si> wrote:
> > >Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Is this wrong plural intentional?
"Nasty, tricksy parenthesises. We hates them!"
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: the world's attitude towards parentheses
Date:
Message-ID: <m364wxvxtb.fsf@rr.trudgett>
Sampo Smolander <·························@helsinki.fi> writes:
> Maks Romih <·····@snt.si> wrote:
>
>> > >Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Is this wrong plural intentional?
>
> "Nasty, tricksy parenthesises. We hates them!"
Absolutely classic! ROFL. You don't mind if I steal it, do you?
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
"Nasty, tricksy parenthesises. We hates them!"
-- Sampo Smolander
>>>>> "Maks" == Maks Romih <·····@snt.si> writes:
>> Christian Lynbech wrote:
>>
>> >Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises,
Maks> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maks> Is this wrong plural intentional? To show, that the rest of world
Maks> doesn't even know how to spell the sacred word?
No. I'm not a native speaker of the english tongue and while I have a
fair vocabulary I often fall short when trying to bend the words after
my twisted train of thought.
-- Christian
Christian Lynbech wrote:
>>>>>>"Maks" == Maks Romih <·····@snt.si> writes:
>
>
>>>Christian Lynbech wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Given the rest of the world's attitude towards parenthesises,
>
> Maks> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Maks> Is this wrong plural intentional? To show, that the rest of world
> Maks> doesn't even know how to spell the sacred word?
>
> No. I'm not a native speaker of the english tongue...
Don't feel too bad. Most Americans do not know the word parentheses
exists, never mind how to spell it. :)
kt
Christian Lynbech wrote:
> I stumbled across some files produced by Rational Rose, a modelling
> tool that dabbles in things such as UML diagrams and surprisingly
> enough it had an SEXP format.
>
I am pretty sure that Grady Booch is aware of CLOS and Lisp. If
I am not mistaken there was a Rational Rose automated CLOS code generator
sometime in the past.
Here is a quote from Grady praising Interlisp-D
http://lemonodor.com/archives/000702.html
And here an interview where he mentions CLOS.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/02/talkingto/
Wade
Wade Humeniuk <··················@telus.net> writes:
> I am pretty sure that Grady Booch is aware of CLOS and Lisp. If
CLOS is covered (together with Smalltalk, C++ and Object Pascal) in
the first edition of Booch's book "Object-Oriented Design - With
Applications", Benjamin/Cummings, 1991. He already worked at Rational
back then.
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
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 wrote:
> Wade Humeniuk <··················@telus.net> writes:
>
>
>>I am pretty sure that Grady Booch is aware of CLOS and Lisp. If
>
>
> CLOS is covered (together with Smalltalk, C++ and Object Pascal) in
> the first edition of Booch's book "Object-Oriented Design - With
> Applications", Benjamin/Cummings, 1991. He already worked at Rational
> back then.
>
Then I wasn't imagining it. I certainly saw a copy back then as the
company I was working for wanted to move to OO techniques (and we worked
with a trial of Rational Rose.)
Wade