I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
language book.
Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCS/logo/english/thinklgo.pdf
Also, what logo distro/version can I get? I use cygwin on win xp.
Thanks.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
> computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
> language book.
>
> Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCS/logo/english/thinklgo.pdf
>
> Also, what logo distro/version can I get? I use cygwin on win xp.
>
> Thanks.
Here, I found an interesting logo interpreter and an interesting
looking book about 'symbolic computing' - sounds lispish!
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v1-toc2.html
there's also and advanced volume of it
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v2-toc2.html
and yet another volume
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v3-toc2.html
I know logo has a kiddies reputation, but this guy seems pretty
credible http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/index.html
So, would logo be a good intro to lisp for me?
············@gmail.com writes:
> I know logo has a kiddies reputation, but this guy seems pretty
> credible http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/index.html
>
> So, would logo be a good intro to lisp for me?
If you're interested in lisp, study lisp!
Once upon a time, there was small computers where logo could run, and
where lisp did not (probably for bad reasons; I assume lisp developers
were more interested at that time in developping lisp on big,
specialized workstations, for serrious AI work, than on
microprocessors for the kiddies market). At that time, it was indeed
much better to learn Logo than the alternative (basic) to develop your
mind. Nowadays, you can find in landfills free computers more than
powerful enough to run any free lisp implementation, and with the
Internet, access to the information, tutorial, books, "teachers", and
to the programs themselves, have removed totally starvation of
apprentice programmers both in hardware and software. Even if you
wanted to learn how to use professionnal software run by Fortune 100
enterprise, you could download Solaris, Oracle, SAP, and whatever most
professionnal software package for free.
By the way if you're interested in the kiddie part of logo, namely the
turtle graphics, they exist in lisp too, for example in DrScheme turtles.scm.
You can also download this small clisp package:
http://www.informatimago.com/users/pascal/ipl-0.1-alpha.tar.gz
and type:
tar zxvf ipl-0.1-alpha.tar.gz
cd code
./lisp.sh
(load"ipl-ex-graphic")
(ex-turtle-1)
(ex-turtle-2)
(ex-turtle-3)
to see three examples of turtle graphics in Common Lisp on clisp-2.35 with clx.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
············@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
> computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
> language book.
>
> Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCS/logo/english/thinklgo.pdf
>
> Also, what logo distro/version can I get? I use cygwin on win xp.
>
> Thanks.
Friend,
Not that amateur books are bad, but you should understand that
introductory book are the most important things that will shape your
thinking. Damn, this sounds so ambitious, sorry.
******** I think great introductory books on lisp would be SICP or The
little lisper. *********
"how to think as a computer scientist" is an appealing title, that's
for sure, but I read its preface and thought that a 13 chapter book
written in 14 days, can't be too great.
Drop me a mail at dima_turbiner [at] yahoo.com, and I'll send you a pdf
of SICP. Also, there are great video lectures based on that book.
Good luck,
Dimitri
·············@yahoo.com wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
>>computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
>>language book.
>>
>>Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
> Not that amateur books are bad, but you should understand that
> introductory book are the most important things that will shape your
> thinking. Damn, this sounds so ambitious, sorry.
>
> ******** I think great introductory books on lisp would be SICP or The
> little lisper. *********
Unless you're keen on the turtle graphics angle, I would second Dima's
SICP recommendation. It changed the way I think about computation. Alas,
that was after two decades of my having an impoverished view of
computation, but I'M NOT BITTER, REALLY.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/
http://www.cs.uvm.edu/~dvanhorn/scheme/sicp.pdf
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> ·············@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ············@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
> >>computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
> >>language book.
> >>
> >>Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
>
> > Not that amateur books are bad, but you should understand that
> > introductory book are the most important things that will shape your
> > thinking. Damn, this sounds so ambitious, sorry.
> >
> > ******** I think great introductory books on lisp would be SICP or The
> > little lisper. *********
>
> Unless you're keen on the turtle graphics angle, I would second Dima's
> SICP recommendation. It changed the way I think about computation. Alas,
> that was after two decades of my having an impoverished view of
> computation, but I'M NOT BITTER, REALLY.
>
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/
> http://www.cs.uvm.edu/~dvanhorn/scheme/sicp.pdf
Thanks. Is the little lisper/schemer available online too?
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
(SNIP)
>
>
> Unless you're keen on the turtle graphics angle, I would second Dima's
> SICP recommendation. It changed the way I think about computation. Alas,
> that was after two decades of my having an impoverished view of
> computation, but I'M NOT BITTER, REALLY.
>
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/
> http://www.cs.uvm.edu/~dvanhorn/scheme/sicp.pdf
Well I *am* bitter; just yesterday in OO databases seminar, I remarked
that if I had a time machine go back to the beginnings of programming
language development and kill* everyone except McCarthy; that way we
wouldn't have to put up with the same old tedious concepts recycled via
yet another horribly broken syntax.
That said, SQL + relational model probably wasn't the best vehicle ever
for OO.
John Connors
http://badbyteblues.blogspot.com
* My chosen weapon would be a pair of viciously sharp paranthenses.
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: Would logo count as an introduction to lisp?
Date:
Message-ID: <o0zmoko02c.fsf@franz.com>
John Connors <·····@yagc.ndo.co.uk> writes:
> Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> (SNIP)
>>
>>
>> Unless you're keen on the turtle graphics angle, I would second Dima's
>> SICP recommendation. It changed the way I think about computation. Alas,
>> that was after two decades of my having an impoverished view of
>> computation, but I'M NOT BITTER, REALLY.
>>
>> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/
>> http://www.cs.uvm.edu/~dvanhorn/scheme/sicp.pdf
>
> Well I *am* bitter; just yesterday in OO databases seminar, I remarked
> that if I had a time machine go back to the beginnings of programming
> language development and kill* everyone except McCarthy; that way we
> wouldn't have to put up with the same old tedious concepts recycled via
> yet another horribly broken syntax.
> * My chosen weapon would be a pair of viciously sharp paranthenses.
Careful who you kill. Remember that McCarthy wanted to use mexps
rather than sexps, and so although what we would have gotten would have
had parentheses, it wouldn't have looked like Lisp does today...
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
·············@yahoo.com wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
> > computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
> > language book.
> >
> > Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
> >
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCS/logo/english/thinklgo.pdf
> >
> > Also, what logo distro/version can I get? I use cygwin on win xp.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
> Friend,
>
> Not that amateur books are bad, but you should understand that
> introductory book are the most important things that will shape your
> thinking. Damn, this sounds so ambitious, sorry.
>
> ******** I think great introductory books on lisp would be SICP or The
> little lisper. *********
>
> "how to think as a computer scientist" is an appealing title, that's
> for sure, but I read its preface and thought that a 13 chapter book
> written in 14 days, can't be too great.
>
> Drop me a mail at dima_turbiner [at] yahoo.com, and I'll send you a pdf
> of SICP. Also, there are great video lectures based on that book.
>
> Good luck,
> Dimitri
At what point do you suggest I study such a book? is it a basic or an
advanced topic? I was planning to learn a few scripting languages like
perl and python, and compare them to each other, do a little practice
with short scripts, and then later on learn serious theory when I want
to make big programs. Do you suggest I study the theory before I learn
the programming languages or afterwards for when I want to make big
programs?
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
> If you don't know any programming language, then first learn one.
> Some basic Common Lisp or some scheme.
>
> Then read SICP as soon as you can (and watch the videos, they're even
> available in iPod video format now!)
The SeaFunc constituency is mostly of the opinion that "The Little
Schemer" is a far more digestible / newbie useful introduction to
Scheme than SICP is. SICP is a fairly advanced book in some ways,
there's a fair amount of esoterica.
BTW, Pascal, your posts are coming up on Google Groups as "the author
has requested that they not be archived." Seeing as how some of your
posts are useful for posterity, is that really your intent? People do
search archives many months or even a few years after the fact to get
answers on various technical points.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
"Cruise Director" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>
>> If you don't know any programming language, then first learn one.
>> Some basic Common Lisp or some scheme.
>>
>> Then read SICP as soon as you can (and watch the videos, they're even
>> available in iPod video format now!)
>
> The SeaFunc constituency is mostly of the opinion that "The Little
> Schemer" is a far more digestible / newbie useful introduction to
> Scheme than SICP is. SICP is a fairly advanced book in some ways,
> there's a fair amount of esoterica.
Right. The point is that there are two kinds of newbies:
- newbies in programming, who don't know the first word about
computers and programs.
The Little Schemer / Lisper would be better indeed for them.
- newbies in lisp who already know how to programs and who already
know at least one non-lisp programming language.
I think they can use SICP.
> BTW, Pascal, your posts are coming up on Google Groups as "the author
> has requested that they not be archived." Seeing as how some of your
> posts are useful for posterity, is that really your intent? People do
> search archives many months or even a few years after the fact to get
> answers on various technical points.
:-) thank you for reporting this behavior of Google Groups.
Actually, I put:
X-No-Archive: no
to be able to easily switch to X-No-Archive: yes
occasionnaly.
That is, (not (not archive)) ie. do archive.
But I was suspecting that they won't handle it right.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Litter box not here.
You must have moved it again.
I'll poop in the sink.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Cruise Director" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> >>
> >> If you don't know any programming language, then first learn one.
> >> Some basic Common Lisp or some scheme.
> >>
> >> Then read SICP as soon as you can (and watch the videos, they're even
> >> available in iPod video format now!)
> >
> > The SeaFunc constituency is mostly of the opinion that "The Little
> > Schemer" is a far more digestible / newbie useful introduction to
> > Scheme than SICP is. SICP is a fairly advanced book in some ways,
> > there's a fair amount of esoterica.
>
> Right. The point is that there are two kinds of newbies:
>
> - newbies in programming, who don't know the first word about
> computers and programs.
>
> The Little Schemer / Lisper would be better indeed for them.
>
>
> - newbies in lisp who already know how to programs and who already
> know at least one non-lisp programming language.
>
> I think they can use SICP.
>
Thanks ever so much, you guys have been very helpful.
Now, to be honest, my immediate needs seem pretty well covered by bash,
nano, awk, latex and R, and I'm almost sure I'll pick up some basic
commandline perl over the coming months to use its builtins and cpan. I
have tried to learn perl in the past, but was always put off by the
punctuation noise of regular expressions in scripts. I have already
covered a lot of regular expression by learning grep, sed and awk, and
it hit me the other day when looking at a perl script that would've
terrified me a while ago that it was actually quite understandable and
familiar.
So I think I may as well move ahead and learn proper 'programming' - as
this has been my main stumbling block in my previous attempts at
learning a programming language. I'll perhaps start on the SICP book as
it's available to me, and give it a good 6 months to a year to study it
- is this a reasonable timeframe? I'll just give it however long it
takes.
Would understanding lisp and SICP make it much easier for me to work in
other programming languages? How would it relate to OOP?
BTW, what do you guys think of this book? http://www.htdp.org/
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> >
> > Would understanding lisp and SICP make it much easier for me to work in
> > other programming languages?
>
> Definitely.
>
>
> > How would it relate to OOP?
>
> Well enough. The important message of SICP is: abstraction (both data
> or procedural abstractions). And that's what you can do with OOP.
>
>
> > BTW, what do you guys think of this book? http://www.htdp.org/
>
> HTDP is a good book too.
>
Thanks. This is pretty exciting. What other books would you recommend I
look at too?
Also, I got the gnu common lisp interpreter that comes with cygwin and
I got gnu guile too, though I think guile is an extensions tool rather
than a proper scheme interpreter. Would the gnu CL do? What scheme
interpreter would you recommed?
Thanks.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> ············@gmail.com writes:
> > Thanks. This is pretty exciting. What other books would you recommend I
> > look at too?
> >
> > Also, I got the gnu common lisp interpreter that comes with cygwin and
> > I got gnu guile too, though I think guile is an extensions tool rather
> > than a proper scheme interpreter. Would the gnu CL do? What scheme
> > interpreter would you recommed?
>
> Don't confuse Scheme and Common Lisp. They're different languages in
> the same lisp family. Same difference, say, than between C and Pascal.
>
> So if you want to learn Scheme, use DrScheme and read HTDP.
>
> And if you want to learn Common Lisp, use clisp (for example) and read PCL.
> Everything's listed on cliki: http://www.cliki.net/Online%20Tutorial
>
>
> In both cases, read SICP and watch the videos.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>
Thanks Pascal. I started reading Successful lisp, it's a very readable
text. I'm on chapter 3 now. I also typed clisp in bash and here it
seems I have a clisp interpreter waiting for my instructions. :-)
Where do I find those SICP videos?
············@gmail.com wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> > ············@gmail.com writes:
> > > Thanks. This is pretty exciting. What other books would you recommend I
> > > look at too?
> > >
> > > Also, I got the gnu common lisp interpreter that comes with cygwin and
> > > I got gnu guile too, though I think guile is an extensions tool rather
> > > than a proper scheme interpreter. Would the gnu CL do? What scheme
> > > interpreter would you recommed?
> >
> > Don't confuse Scheme and Common Lisp. They're different languages in
> > the same lisp family. Same difference, say, than between C and Pascal.
> >
> > So if you want to learn Scheme, use DrScheme and read HTDP.
> >
> > And if you want to learn Common Lisp, use clisp (for example) and read PCL.
> > Everything's listed on cliki: http://www.cliki.net/Online%20Tutorial
> >
> >
> > In both cases, read SICP and watch the videos.
> >
> > --
> > __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
> >
>
> Thanks Pascal. I started reading Successful lisp, it's a very readable
> text. I'm on chapter 3 now. I also typed clisp in bash and here it
> seems I have a clisp interpreter waiting for my instructions. :-)
>
> Where do I find those SICP videos?
Oh, sorry. I found them. They must be those ones.
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> ············@gmail.com writes:
> > So I think I may as well move ahead and learn proper 'programming' - as
> > this has been my main stumbling block in my previous attempts at
> > learning a programming language. I'll perhaps start on the SICP book as
> > it's available to me, and give it a good 6 months to a year to study it
> > - is this a reasonable timeframe? I'll just give it however long it
> > takes.
> >
> > Would understanding lisp and SICP make it much easier for me to work in
> > other programming languages?
>
> Definitely.
Well, let me offer a dissenting opinion. It's not going to *harm* you,
and indeed, anything of a theoretical nature in computerdom will be
helped. But, so much of computerdom is not theoretical. There are
tons and tons and tons of compilers, IDEs, libraries, and tools to
learn about. Lisp-specific stuff of this sort isn't going to help you
with non-Lisp stuff at all. It's like asking, "How do I bone up for
Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy?" You can't really, at least not in any
quick focused way. It's all idiosyncratic tedious information that
wastes gobs and gobs of time. And sad to say, depending on the problem
domains you choose to tackle, you may end up spending a lot more time
on getting builds, tools, IDEs, and APIs to work than you'll ever spend
on the theoretical niceties of any particular programming language.
Some platforms make this harder than others. You are far more likely
to see these "in practice" problems on Windows than on Unix.
So what I'm saying is: is studying Lisp / Scheme worthwhile? Yes. Is
it going to make you commercially productive in some other language?
No. If that's your goal, go sink your time into that other language.
Can you be commercially productive in Lisp / Scheme themselves? Maybe,
if your platform isn't onerous, you select good tools, and you can
actually find someone willing to pay you. Lisp / Scheme jobs aren't
just "open the want ads and there they are" kinds of jobs. At least,
they definitely aren't in Seattle (Microsoft's hood). There are
definitely pockets around the USA where Lisp / Scheme are better
organized and better represented, like NYC, Boston, and maybe also
Silicon Valley.
Cheers,
Brandon J. Van Every
(cruise (director (of SeaFunc)
'(Seattle Functional Programmers)))
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeaFunc
Cruise Director wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> > ············@gmail.com writes:
> > > So I think I may as well move ahead and learn proper 'programming' - as
> > > this has been my main stumbling block in my previous attempts at
> > > learning a programming language. I'll perhaps start on the SICP book as
> > > it's available to me, and give it a good 6 months to a year to study it
> > > - is this a reasonable timeframe? I'll just give it however long it
> > > takes.
> > >
> > > Would understanding lisp and SICP make it much easier for me to work in
> > > other programming languages?
> >
> > Definitely.
>
> Well, let me offer a dissenting opinion. It's not going to *harm* you,
> and indeed, anything of a theoretical nature in computerdom will be
> helped. But, so much of computerdom is not theoretical. There are
> tons and tons and tons of compilers, IDEs, libraries, and tools to
> learn about. Lisp-specific stuff of this sort isn't going to help you
> with non-Lisp stuff at all. It's like asking, "How do I bone up for
> Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy?" You can't really, at least not in any
> quick focused way. It's all idiosyncratic tedious information that
> wastes gobs and gobs of time. And sad to say, depending on the problem
> domains you choose to tackle, you may end up spending a lot more time
> on getting builds, tools, IDEs, and APIs to work than you'll ever spend
> on the theoretical niceties of any particular programming language.
>
> Some platforms make this harder than others. You are far more likely
> to see these "in practice" problems on Windows than on Unix.
>
> So what I'm saying is: is studying Lisp / Scheme worthwhile? Yes. Is
> it going to make you commercially productive in some other language?
> No. If that's your goal, go sink your time into that other language.
>
> Can you be commercially productive in Lisp / Scheme themselves? Maybe,
> if your platform isn't onerous, you select good tools, and you can
> actually find someone willing to pay you. Lisp / Scheme jobs aren't
> just "open the want ads and there they are" kinds of jobs. At least,
> they definitely aren't in Seattle (Microsoft's hood). There are
> definitely pockets around the USA where Lisp / Scheme are better
> organized and better represented, like NYC, Boston, and maybe also
> Silicon Valley.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon J. Van Every
> (cruise (director (of SeaFunc)
> '(Seattle Functional Programmers)))
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeaFunc
Hi. Thanks for the reply. I have no plans to seek employment in
computer programming. I'm learning it for similar reasons to why I'm
relearning statistics these days. I learnt enough statistics to get by
in my postgrad and be able to comment on some research papers but never
really 'got' it in terms of mastering the theoretical basis. If I met a
situation I wasn't familiar with I felt at a loss. So I'm giving it an
honest, patient go these days, with no deadline or pressure, to know it
well and for life. Same for computer programming, I played with it in
the past, read a few books, modified a few scripts, but never mastered
its basics, or practiced it long enough to know it well.
Both, statistics and scripting, are things that I'm interested in, even
as pastimes, and are also things that I regard very useful, either for
my thinking processes in general, or my professional skills - and by
professional I mean neither in statistics or computing.
I must say, I'm reading lisp so far and I find it pretty absurd
compared to what I've read in the past - perl, python, tcl, ruby etc -
but strangely amusing. Reading about lisp seems more entertaining than
reading about perl.
Cruise Director wrote:
> Is it going to make you commercially productive in some other language?
Where did Van Every get relevant knowledge on this point?
······@earthlink.net wrote:
> Cruise Director wrote:
>
>> Is it going to make you commercially productive in some other language?
>
> Where did Van Every get relevant knowledge on this point?
He had a conversation with an expert one day while he was out gathering
signatures, after his bankruptcy filing, but before he started selling
his blood. *Please* try to keep up with the storyline. If you can't make
time for 'Days of our Woebegone Lives' every day, archives are available
- he's helpfully refrained from adding any headers that would prevent
his posts from being eternally archived for posterity.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Would logo count as an introduction to lisp?
Date:
Message-ID: <zmoknqrb.fsf@alum.mit.edu>
············@gmail.com writes:
> I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
> computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
> language book.
>
> Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
No.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> ············@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>>I'm considering reading the logo version of how to think like a
>>computer scientist. I know that's mostly a programming book and not a
>>language book.
>>
>>Still, would logo count as an intro into lisp?
>
>
> No.
It was mine. Dynamism, untyped variables, garbage collection... not bad.
OTOH, I did not have a Lisp for my Apple II, and aside from broad
qualities the two languages are pretty far apart and fabulous free CLs
are widely available, so...
No.
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950