From: Stefan Arentz
Subject: Re: Why do Python, Java and Perl have so many libraries and CL does not?
Date:
Message-ID: <87mzkgjk96.fsf@keizer.soze.com>
"Nikhil Ketkar" <············@gmail.com> writes:
> Why do Python, Java and Perl have so many libraries and CL does not? Is
> it that they are enough and more of libraries but there but not found
> easily like Python, Perl and Java because they are spread out? Is the
> lack of popularity of CL to blame and people are not writing and using
> new libraries? Is it the lack of usage by industry leaders like Sun
> and Google? (Google is big on Python) Is it the lack of glue (like a
> foreign fuction interface) which allows the reuse of libraries in other
> languages like Python?
Read the last paragraph of the following blog entry.
S.
http://lemonodor.com/archives/001273.html
CL-XMPP
cl-xmpp is a Lisp implementation of the Jabber protocol the open standard for instant messaging (used by Google Talk). It works with SBCL, LispWorks and ACL (and soon OpenMCL). It doesn't yet include SSL support, which is required by Google Talk.
I'm embarrassed that Lispers writing software requiring nothing fancier than XML parsing, sockets and SSL have to work so hard to support multiple platforms. The Lisp model worked for us decades ago, but I think its time of maximum usefuless has passed.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Why do Python, Java and Perl have so many libraries and CL does not?
Date:
Message-ID: <op.szv7gthepqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:06:13 +0100, Stefan Arentz
<·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nikhil Ketkar" <············@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Why do Python, Java and Perl have so many libraries and CL does not? Is
>> it that they are enough and more of libraries but there but not found
>> easily like Python, Perl and Java because they are spread out? Is the
>> lack of popularity of CL to blame and people are not writing and using
>> new libraries? Is it the lack of usage by industry leaders like Sun
>> and Google? (Google is big on Python) Is it the lack of glue (like a
>> foreign fuction interface) which allows the reuse of libraries in other
>> languages like Python?
>
> Read the last paragraph of the following blog entry.
>
> S.
>
>
> http://lemonodor.com/archives/001273.html
>
> CL-XMPP
> cl-xmpp is a Lisp implementation of the Jabber protocol the open
> standard for instant messaging (used by Google Talk). It works with
> SBCL, LispWorks and ACL (and soon OpenMCL). It doesn't yet include SSL
> support, which is required by Google Talk.
>
> I'm embarrassed that Lispers writing software requiring nothing fancier
> than XML parsing, sockets and SSL have to work so hard to support
> multiple platforms. The Lisp model worked for us decades ago, but I
> think its time of maximum usefuless has passed.
As I said before Python, Java and Perl are all single vendor
implementations. This is not so much a Python vs. CL question
as a vendor specific vs. generic portable language question.
Like if you need portable C++ you are stuck with the ANSI C
lib + stdlib. Not unlike the options offered by CL.
Usually the answer is either to stick with a vendor
or use portable libraries from a third party.
(Do you think C++ is dying too)
www.cliki.net has a (half) decent selection of libraries.
It is not as extensive as, say cpan though.
If you choose ACL or LW you will find they support openSSL.
All Lisp's have a foreign function interface.
UFFI is a attempt to make a portable FFI.
CL's popularity seems to be on a rise so I's say it's not
a dead language (yet).
If you feel you need huge libraries maybe CL is not for you.
Do a quick design, take a look at cliki, see how much effort
it would be to make interfaces to libraries you don't find there
(or write your own) and make a assessment.
Also look at the vendor versions. Like, do you need portable code
of just cross platform portabillity?
By the way are you aware of http://foil.sourceforge.net/ ?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Richard M Kreuter
Subject: Re: Why do Python, Java and Perl have so many libraries and CL does not?
Date:
Message-ID: <87vez3itae.fsf@progn.net>
Stefan Arentz <·············@gmail.com> writes:
> "Nikhil Ketkar" <············@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Why do Python, Java and Perl have so many libraries and CL does
> > not?
>
> Read the last paragraph of the following blog entry.
>
> http://lemonodor.com/archives/001273.html
>
> CL-XMPP
>
> cl-xmpp is a Lisp implementation of the Jabber protocol the open
> standard for instant messaging (used by Google Talk). It works with
> SBCL, LispWorks and ACL (and soon OpenMCL). It doesn't yet include
> SSL support, which is required by Google Talk.
>
> I'm embarrassed that Lispers writing software requiring nothing
> fancier than XML parsing, sockets and SSL have to work so hard to
> support multiple platforms. The Lisp model worked for us decades
> ago, but I think its time of maximum usefuless has passed.
I ported the particular library mentioned in this blog post to clisp
just now, in about 55 minutes, approximately half of which were spent
(a) dealing with a weird version of tar [1], and (b) trying to
remember my jabber password. AFAICT, this library works fine on
clisp, though all I did was authenticate to jabber.org and receive a
message from a buddy; I didn't go as far as holding an entire
conversation using cl-xmpp. The total diff is 10 lines long, filling
in 2 methods. No great shakes.
If people are looking to whine about libraries that ought to be
trivially portable but aren't, this ain't a good candidate.
--
[1] The tar on my system doesn't play nicely with the old asdf-install
I have for clisp, forcing me to trace dependencies manually. IIUC,
this has been fixed in a newer version of asdf-install than the one
I'm using with clisp, so arguably I'm the badguy here.