"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> Is Arc still on?
> Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
Paul Graham is enjoying the company of moon eyed admirers in
Cambridge. He just wishes some of them were women.
:-)
J/K, pg.
I don't think everyone can be as productive as Knuth.
--
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels.
--- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:30:31 +0200, David Steuber
<·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think everyone can be as productive as Knuth.
>
I think Stephen Wolfram holds the record.
He wrote mathematica in 2 years.
That was at the time about 300 000 lines of (Objective) C code.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
John Thingstad wrote:
> Is Arc still on?
> Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I am glad that someone else asks this questions, coz' I got the same
feelings.
My fear is that Arc is turning into vapourware. If one looks at the
current state of new languages, or extensions of new languages, all
have implementations, even if not complete.
And the people who are responsible for them had about the same
intentions as Paul Graham : take an existing language and remove its
deficiencies.
The two that stand out the most for me at the moment are D and Perl 6.
Other people may have other examples.
On the other hand, it seems that Common Lisp is gaining popularity. I
read /. five or six years, and I mostly concentrate on the programming
related articles. I found it surprising that in the past 12 months or
so, I have seen several talkbacks touting the advantages of Lisp, while
in the years before that I haven't seen any.
I am still a newbie in Common Lisp, but I have been programming for
fifteen years already, with six years of Perl, and for me the only
drawback in Common Lisp are its lack of libraries, especially when
compared to Perl.
So while Paul Graham may have issues with Common Lisp and would like to
attempt to remediate them, I find Common Lisp the best programming
language I have ever met (with dBase, FoxPro, Clipper, C, C++, Cobol,
Perl and Python experience), bar the library issues.
But, I suppose with ongoing work on SBCL (which makes it possible that
I at least can compile Common Lisp code on a Windows workstation),
FFI's (which one would you recommend, considering that I use CLisp and
SBCL) and possible linking to Qt (no GTK+ projects in sight ?), that
Common Lisp might make Paul Graham's points on Arc moot.
Just my thoughts, for which I have now found a nice place to express
them.
Regards,
Jurgen
jurgen_defurne wrote:
> John Thingstad wrote:
>
>>Is Arc still on?
>>Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
>>
>>--
>>Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
> I am glad that someone else asks this questions, coz' I got the same
> feelings.
>
> My fear is that Arc is turning into vapourware.
Turned. PG ran up the white flag a coupla years ago.
> If one looks at the
> current state of new languages, or extensions of new languages, all
> have implementations, even if not complete.
>
> And the people who are responsible for them had about the same
> intentions as Paul Graham : take an existing language and remove its
> deficiencies.
>
> The two that stand out the most for me at the moment are D and Perl 6.
> Other people may have other examples.
>
> On the other hand, it seems that Common Lisp is gaining popularity. I
> read /. five or six years, and I mostly concentrate on the programming
> related articles. I found it surprising that in the past 12 months or
> so, I have seen several talkbacks touting the advantages of Lisp, while
> in the years before that I haven't seen any.
You missed a good one by Kent Pitman, might want to see if you can find
that.
>
> I am still a newbie in Common Lisp, but I have been programming for
> fifteen years already, with six years of Perl, and for me the only
> drawback in Common Lisp are its lack of libraries, especially when
> compared to Perl.
Which one do you miss the most?
>
> So while Paul Graham may have issues with Common Lisp and would like to
> attempt to remediate them, I find Common Lisp the best programming
> language I have ever met (with dBase, FoxPro, Clipper, C, C++, Cobol,
> Perl and Python experience), bar the library issues.
>
> But, I suppose with ongoing work on SBCL (which makes it possible that
> I at least can compile Common Lisp code on a Windows workstation),
> FFI's (which one would you recommend, considering that I use CLisp and
> SBCL) and possible linking to Qt (no GTK+ projects in sight ?)
http://common-lisp.net/project/cells-gtk/
> , that
> Common Lisp might make Paul Graham's points on Arc moot.
>
> Just my thoughts, for which I have now found a nice place to express
> them.
Beware of Savages.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> jurgen_defurne wrote:
--->8--- snipped --->8---
> >
> > On the other hand, it seems that Common Lisp is gaining popularity. I
> > read /. five or six years, and I mostly concentrate on the programming
> > related articles. I found it surprising that in the past 12 months or
> > so, I have seen several talkbacks touting the advantages of Lisp, while
> > in the years before that I haven't seen any.
>
> You missed a good one by Kent Pitman, might want to see if you can find
> that.
Here's the link (maybe I assume too much, but I think this is probably
the one you're talking about):
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/03/1726251
-Duncan
--->8--- snipped --->8---
Duncan Rose wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> jurgen_defurne wrote:
>
> --->8--- snipped --->8---
>
>>> On the other hand, it seems that Common Lisp is gaining popularity. I
>>> read /. five or six years, and I mostly concentrate on the programming
>>> related articles. I found it surprising that in the past 12 months or
>>> so, I have seen several talkbacks touting the advantages of Lisp, while
>>> in the years before that I haven't seen any.
>> You missed a good one by Kent Pitman, might want to see if you can find
>> that.
>
> Here's the link (maybe I assume too much, but I think this is probably
> the one you're talking about):
>
> http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/03/1726251
Excellent article. I just del.icio.us-ified it :)
I thought he articulated the benefits of Lisp extremely well. If it
hasn't been done already, someone should post that on an advocacy site.
I was a little bummed when I clicked over to http://www.hypermeta.com/
hoping to see what this Kent Pitman guy was up to lately, and the site
appears to not be used much (copyright 2003, apparently abandoned guest
page), but my web site has been inactive for years also and is not at
all representative of what I'm actually doing currently, so I'll give
him the benefit of the doubt.
I particularly liked the part of the article about being able to control
how the update for already-created instances can be controlled when
dynamically loading new code - very cool!
"Lisp is dynamic. The world is ever changing and it's useful to allow
programs to change dynamically with it. I can load new or changed
functions, classes, and method definitions into a running image that I'm
debugging, or even in a deployed production application. When I do, the
code that was running will immediately start using the new definitions.
Classes can be redefined even if the new class has different slots, and,
if I care to, I can control how the update is done from old to new slot
arrangements for already-created instances. This kind of thing supports
programs that must be continually running yet must be responsive to
changes or even just bug fixes."
> -Duncan
>
> --->8--- snipped --->8---
>
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> Which one do you miss the most?
Thinking about this question, it is not about libraries I am missing,
but the ease with which they can be found on CPAN.
There should be something similar (CLAN?). I suppose that the software
which makes up CPAN is probably open/free.
I normally work under Debian, and asdf packages are easy to install.
But when searching for libraries, it seems as if there are a whole lot
of places which have certain libraries.
A system organised like CPAN would make it possible to have a complete
overview of libraries, and would probably also make it easier for
developers to take over or submit patches to code in which they are
interested.
> Beware of Savages.
?
Regards,
Jurgen
jurgen_defurne wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> > Which one do you miss the most?
>
> Thinking about this question, it is not about libraries I am missing,
> but the ease with which they can be found on CPAN.
>
> There should be something similar (CLAN?). I suppose that the software
> which makes up CPAN is probably open/free.
You've got cliki.net, but I agree that installing librearies is a
little ugly.
> I normally work under Debian, and asdf packages are easy to install.
> But when searching for libraries, it seems as if there are a whole lot
> of places which have certain libraries.
You're lucky, I'm using OSX and a lot of them just doesn't work nor
compile on my system.
This is what happens with Lisp at this momment, but because it is open
source and hasn't got so much acceptance as Perl, we all are
responsible for improving this.
Perhaps you can ask for a particular library and someone here can help
you.
jurgen_defurne wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Which one do you miss the most?
>
>
> Thinking about this question, it is not about libraries I am missing,
> but the ease with which they can be found on CPAN.
Do what I do: http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/
They even have a badly-named* cffi-grovel project to generate bindings
automatically.
>
> There should be something similar (CLAN?). I suppose that the software
> which makes up CPAN is probably open/free.
>
> I normally work under Debian, and asdf packages are easy to install.
> But when searching for libraries, it seems as if there are a whole lot
> of places which have certain libraries.
>
> A system organised like CPAN would make it possible to have a complete
> overview of libraries, and would probably also make it easier for
> developers to take over or submit patches to code in which they are
> interested.
>
>
>>Beware of Savages.
>
>
> ?
Long story. Important c.l.l lore, however. Perhaps Google has "the
savages of comp.lang.lisp"? Oh my....
kenny
* Apparently some evil demon possesses anyone attempting to name a
project to automatically generate bindings. So far we have fetter,
verrazano, and grovel. 'Nuff said? k
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
>>>>> "Ken" == Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
Ken> Apparently some evil demon possesses anyone attempting to name a
Ken> project to automatically generate bindings. So far we have fetter,
Ken> verrazano, and grovel.
It was better in the old days, back when a man was a man and a mouse
something farmers had in barns, then we used names such as CPARSE.
CPARSE, glad you mentioned it, incidently has not entirely passed
away. I am working on a new release. It will be availble Real Soon Now (TM).
Stay tuned at http://common-lisp.net/project/cparse.
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
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 wrote:
>>>>>>"Ken" == Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> Ken> Apparently some evil demon possesses anyone attempting to name a
> Ken> project to automatically generate bindings. So far we have fetter,
> Ken> verrazano, and grovel.
>
> It was better in the old days, back when a man was a man and a mouse
> something farmers had in barns, then we used names such as CPARSE.
I knew I was forgetting one. But that should be cParse, no?
Come to think of it, the proposal I backed which got beaten out by
Fetter was Lilac, and I have no idea why (other than the evil demon).
>
> CPARSE, glad you mentioned it, incidently has not entirely passed
> away. I am working on a new release. It will be availble Real Soon Now (TM).
cffi-grovel has not stolen your thunder?
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
"jurgen_defurne" <··············@pandora.be> writes:
> There should be something similar (CLAN?). I suppose that the software
There was such an attempt:
cCLan
http://www.cliki.net/cCLan
> A system organised like CPAN would make it possible to have a complete
> overview of libraries, and would probably also make it easier for
The Common Lisp Directory might help:
www.cl-user.net
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
jurgen_defurne wrote:
> But, I suppose with ongoing work on SBCL (which makes it possible that
> I at least can compile Common Lisp code on a Windows workstation),
I think it was discussed a while back on #lisp... This list
http://www.dridus.com/~nyef/TODO.Win32 is dated, but nyef updated it
some here http://meme.b9.com/cview.html?channel=lisp&date=060813 at
16:34:41.
> FFI's (which one would you recommend, considering that I use CLisp and
> SBCL)
http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/ I think is the leading project
right now.
> and possible linking to Qt (no GTK+ projects in sight ?)
For QT, I think this is a start: http://lisp-cffi-qt4.sourceforge.net/
For GTK there are actually several. I think this might be good to
start with:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/clg
For a more complete list: http://www.cliki.net/GTK%20binding
In article <·················@pandora.upc.no>,
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> Is Arc still on?
> Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
Paul is busy starting companies.
I also suspect he is (or eventually will be) busy learning two important
lessons:
1. Implementing Everything as a linked list is a Really Bad Idea, and
2. Getting macros to work right in a Lisp-1 is hard.
Also, don't forget that the original plan was always to take 100 years
or so to be sure to get it Right this time.
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> 2. Getting macros to work right in a Lisp-1 is hard.
Why?
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> 2. Getting macros to work right in a Lisp-1 is hard.
>
> Why?
http://www.dreamsongs.com/Separation.html
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:28:27 +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
<······@knm.org.pl> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
>> 2. Getting macros to work right in a Lisp-1 is hard.
>
> Why?
>
Well Hygenic macroes are more complicated.
But given that the implementation issues have been solved in Scheme
I cant see why it should be that difficult to use this as a
template perhaps making some modifications.
It would be difficult to do it from scratch in such a way that
name clashes are avoided.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:28:27 +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
> <······@knm.org.pl> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2. Getting macros to work right in a Lisp-1 is hard.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Well Hygenic macroes are more complicated.
> But given that the implementation issues have been solved in Scheme
> I cant see why it should be that difficult to use this as a
> template perhaps making some modifications.
> It would be difficult to do it from scratch in such a way that
> name clashes are avoided.
Have they really been solved? An apparently overlooked issue has been
discovered not so long ago by Andre van Tonder - see
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-72/srfi-72.html#hygiene - so this still
seems to be an unstable area. [1]
Pascal
[1] This is unrelated to whether you regard macro hygiene by default as
an essential feature or not.
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
He posted to the Scheme-48 message board about a month ago:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.scheme48/1771
John Thingstad wrote:
> Is Arc still on?
> Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
dpapathanasiou wrote:
> He posted to the Scheme-48 message board about a month ago:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.scheme48/1771
From there:
> Here's where we use it in the new toplevel:
>
> (define (tl)
> (display "Arc> ")
Wow. Looks like they are hard at it now and writing Actual Code(tm). I
wonder if it will ship with a RoR-Killer or <gasp> browser plug-ins. k
> (on-err (lambda () (display "Error.") (newline) (tl))
> (lambda ()
> (let ((expr (read)))
> (if (eqv? expr ':a)
> 'done
> (begin
> (write (xdef 'that (eval (ac expr '())
> (interaction-environment))))
> (xdef 'thatexpr expr)
> (newline)
> (tl)))))))
>
> John Thingstad wrote:
>
>>Is Arc still on?
>>Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
>>
>>--
>>Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> dpapathanasiou wrote:
> > He posted to the Scheme-48 message board about a month ago:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.scheme48/1771
>
> From there:
>
> > Here's where we use it in the new toplevel:
> >
> > (define (tl)
> > (display "Arc> ")
>
> Wow. Looks like they are hard at it now and writing Actual Code(tm). I
> wonder if it will ship with a RoR-Killer or <gasp> browser plug-ins. k
>
>
> > (on-err (lambda () (display "Error.") (newline) (tl))
> > (lambda ()
> > (let ((expr (read)))
> > (if (eqv? expr ':a)
> > 'done
> > (begin
> > (write (xdef 'that (eval (ac expr '())
> > (interaction-environment))))
> > (xdef 'thatexpr expr)
> > (newline)
> > (tl)))))))
I would do it even easier:
(defpackage "Arc")
(in-package "Arc")
Arc>
John Thingstad wrote:
> Is Arc still on?
> Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Yes, it's still on. Whether it will ever be delivered, I don't know,
but PG has shown some signs of life recently. See here:
http://programming.reddit.com/info/bstl/comments/cbtce
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote on Fri, 01 Sep 2006:
> has paul become to rich and lazy..
Maybe rich. Far from lazy. He regularly writes essays:
http://paulgraham.com/articles.html
He organizes "Startup Schools":
http://startupschool.org/
And he invests in brand-new software companies:
http://ycombinator.com/
I would describe him more as "a bit busy", than "lazy".
> Is Arc still on?
He's got a page on that too:
http://paulgraham.com/arc.html
It doesn't seem to be his top priority at the moment, but if you care you
could probably write to him and get involved.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..."
-- Isaac Asimov
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> Is Arc still on?
> Or has paul become to rich and lazy..
I recently read something by Paul Graham about this, but I can't
remember whether it was in an unrelated essay or blog entry.
Basically, he said something to the effect that, when he releases Arc,
he expects a lot of feedback that will keep him very busy. And he is
currently already busy with Y Combinator.
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net