I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
between themselves! And who can remember the amazing performace put on
by "Matz and Rails Romper Roomers" whose formation of a long, slow,
train of dotted-together boxcars fielded hundreds of exactly-alike slow
web services! Hey, those are the days! So it's clear that until we get
cheerleaders, we aren't going to see success in the programming
language community! Here's my idea: "The Wisp Lizards"! Sponsored by
... no one ... we do all sorts of fun formations. Just one example --
I'm sure you can think of others: We form nested parens and run rings
around a snake eating a gem stone and then close in and try to stomp it
to death, but in an amusing turn around the snake lashes out at the
parens, and although it's too slow to catch them, the gem that ate
bursts out of it and slowly grows larger and larger until it has pushed
everyone else off the field. A performance like that will *surely* make
Lisp the most popular progamming paradigm in the history of programming
paradigms that have cheerleaders!
No it needs a free good quality Windows (+ more) version. Still
everything sucks on this plattform. The slow CLISP is unuseable even if
you don't need performance because very soon you have to use FFI and
then your code is becaming GPLed.
Coming from the dying Eiffel World i know what i'm talking about. Seen
it before, see it again.
llothar wrote:
> No it needs a free good quality Windows (+ more) version. Still
> everything sucks on this plattform. The slow CLISP is unuseable even if
> you don't need performance because very soon you have to use FFI and
> then your code is becaming GPLed.
Read that document carefully: the intent is clearly not to prevent
proprietary programs from using interfaces which are also available on
other Common Lisp implementations!
Citation:
This copyright does *not* cover user programs that run in CLISP and
third-party packages not part of CLISP, if
a) They only reference external symbols in CLISP's public packages
that define API also provided by many other Common Lisp
implementations
(namely the packages COMMON-LISP, COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD,
CLOS,
GRAY, EXT), i.e. if they don't rely on CLISP internals and would
as
well run in any other Common Lisp implementation. Or
b) They only reference external symbols in CLISP's public packages
that define API also provided by many other Common Lisp
implementations
(namely the packages COMMON-LISP, COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD,
CLOS,
GRAY, EXT) and some external, not CLISP specific, symbols in
third-party packages that are released with source code under a
GPL compatible license and that run in a great number of Common
Lisp
implementations, i.e. if they rely on CLISP internals only to
the
extent needed for gaining some functionality also available in a
great number of Common Lisp implementations.
What the intent appears to be is to prevent the situation whereby a
proprietary program is shipped which is so intimately tied to the CLISP
internals that users of that program cannot exercise their GPL
privileges with respect to CLISP itself; they have no chance to upgrade
CLISP and keep that application running, for instance.
If you use the FFI to gain access to, say, the WIN32 API
``CreateMutex'', you are not using CLISP to gain access to something
which is not possible from other Common Lisp implementations on
Windows.
But you do have to make that access from a package which has a
GPL-compatible license and which runs in a ``great number'' of
Common-Lisp implementations.
In other words, the copyright text is carefully designed to allow users
to write proprietary programs which are ported to CLISP and the
underlying platform using a GPL'ed platform-abstraction library, which
takes advantage of CLISP internals like the FFI. That
platform-abstraction library should be demonstrably portable to other
Lisps to show that the proprietary parts of the program which depend
only on it are truly decoupled from CLISP internals. (In reality, I
suspect the CLISP guys would be happy to see that platform abstraction
library run in just run in one other CL implementation rather than
``great many'').
These copyright and licensing terms are quite reasonable. It's fair to
give users source code to the glue which ports your proprietary
application to CLISP, so that for instance they have a fighting chance
to make a different version of CLISP run under your program by
modifying that glue.
> These copyright and licensing terms are quite reasonable. It's fair to
> give users source code to the glue which ports your proprietary
> application to CLISP, so that for instance they have a fighting chance
> to make a different version of CLISP run under your program by
> modifying that glue.
Why do they care about that?
If I tie my proprietary application to a given version of CLISP, I've
hosed my users, but said hosing doesn't make my program less
proprietary, it just makes it less useful. Why do the CLISP developers
care how useful I make my proprietary program?
llothar wrote:
> No it needs a free...
Disease? What disease?
<sigh>
kt
good quality Windows (+ more) version. Still
> everything sucks on this plattform. The slow CLISP is unuseable even if
> you don't need performance because very soon you have to use FFI and
> then your code is becaming GPLed.
>
> Coming from the dying Eiffel World i know what i'm talking about. Seen
> it before, see it again.
>
--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally
won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
········@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
> cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
> is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
> dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
> prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
> haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
> between themselves!
There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
have a charismatic spokesman.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> There is a cult of personality that surrounds the most popular languages
Did the cult of personality appear before or after the languages got
popular?
On 2006-12-05 21:58:09 +0000, "Joel Wilsson" <············@gmail.com> said:
> Did the cult of personality appear before or after the languages got
> popular?
I suspect before. Larry Wall was well known before Perl was.
Joel Wilsson wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>> There is a cult of personality that surrounds the most popular languages
>
> Did the cult of personality appear before or after the languages got
> popular?
Before. Most popular languages are defined by single persons or very
small groups of people who think they know better what's good for
programmers than the programmers themselves.
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/
"Joe Marshall" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> ········@gmail.com wrote:
>> I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
>> cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
>> is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
>> dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
>> prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
>> haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
>> between themselves!
>
> There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
> personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
> have a charismatic spokesman.
Well, we do have Paul Graham. He tells everybody how great Lisp is
and that it's just Common Lisp that sucks. That has got to be worth
at least half a point. :-)
--
Wolfram Fenske
A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Joe Marshall wrote:
> ········@gmail.com wrote:
> > I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
> > cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
> > is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
> > dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
> > prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
> > haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
> > between themselves!
>
> There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
> personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
> have a charismatic spokesman.
there is no "we" in lisp...
Joe Marshall wrote:
> ········@gmail.com wrote:
>> I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
>> cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
>> is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
>> dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
>> prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
>> haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
>> between themselves!
>
> There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
> personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
> have a charismatic spokesman.
Do we want that?
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/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> > ········@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
> >> cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
> >> is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
> >> dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
> >> prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
> >> haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
> >> between themselves!
> >
> > There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
> > personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
> > have a charismatic spokesman.
>
> Do we want that?
Is being popular important?
Lisp needs Cheeseleaders.
..-----..
|\xxxxxxx/|
|.\xxxxx/ |
|..\xxx/ |
|.O.\x/ O|
|...O| O |
\.o.| o/
\..| O/
\.| /
\|/
WE ARE CHEESE.
BOW BEFORE US.
CHEESE IS STRONG
AND YOU ARE NOT.
David Golden wrote:
> Lisp needs Cheeseleaders.
>
> ..-----..
> |\xxxxxxx/|
> |.\xxxxx/ |
> |..\xxx/ |
> |.O.\x/ O|
> |...O| O |
> \.o.| o/
> \..| O/
> \.| /
> \|/
>
> WE ARE CHEESE.
> BOW BEFORE US.
> CHEESE IS STRONG
> AND YOU ARE NOT.
No, no, chee_r_leaders... ;)
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/
Some entity AKA Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net>
wrote mindboggling stuff, while contemplating deep thoughts with closed eyes.
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> > \|/
> > WE ARE CHEESE. BOW BEFORE US.
> > CHEESE IS STRONG AND YOU ARE NOT.
>
> No, no, chee_r_leaders... ;)
Who needs Cheerleaders when Lisp allready provides a girlfriend.
[code stolen from ·@cll ]
(defun make-girlfriend ()
"Not tested for STD's."
(let* ((x (cons #\. nil))
(y (list (make-string 0)))
(magic (format nil "~~3%~~A~~A~~4% ~A~~3%" y))
(chromosome (list x x)))
(apply #'format nil magic chromosome)))
Cor
--
The biggest problems LISP has, is that it does not apeal to dumb people
If this failed to satisfy you try reading the HyperSpec or man frig
(defvar MyComputer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.html
Joe Marshall wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Joe Marshall wrote:
>>> ········@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
>>>> cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
>>>> is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
>>>> dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
>>>> prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
>>>> haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
>>>> between themselves!
>>> There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
>>> personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
>>> have a charismatic spokesman.
>> Do we want that?
>
> Is being popular important?
OK, that's a sufficient answer... ;-)
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/
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> > There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
> > personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
> > have a charismatic spokesman.
>
> Do we want that?
I think Joe would do very well. He's funny and not, as far as I can
tell, crazy.
Zach
Zach Beane wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
>
> > > There is more truth to this than it first seems. There is a cult of
> > > personality that surrounds the most popular languages and we just don't
> > > have a charismatic spokesman.
> >
> > Do we want that?
>
> I think Joe would do very well. He's funny and not, as far as I can
> tell, crazy.
Certainly not crazy enough to want *this* job!
········@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that Lisp suffers in popularity beause it doesn't have
> cheerleaders! Other programming languages have cheerleaders, and this
> is clearly the secret of their success! Who among us doesn't have a
> dozen pirated "Pythonista" videos sporting Peter, Guido, Eric, and Fred
> prancing about scantily clad in Google-logo cutoff t's, trying
> haplessly to create complex formations based only on the open space
> between themselves! And who can remember the amazing performace put on
> by "Matz and Rails Romper Roomers" whose formation of a long, slow,
> train of dotted-together boxcars fielded hundreds of exactly-alike slow
> web services! Hey, those are the days! So it's clear that until we get
> cheerleaders, we aren't going to see success in the programming
> language community! Here's my idea: "The Wisp Lizards"! Sponsored by
> ... no one ... we do all sorts of fun formations. Just one example --
> I'm sure you can think of others: We form nested parens and run rings
> around a snake eating a gem stone and then close in and try to stomp it
> to death, but in an amusing turn around the snake lashes out at the
> parens, and although it's too slow to catch them, the gem that ate
> bursts out of it and slowly grows larger and larger until it has pushed
> everyone else off the field. A performance like that will *surely* make
> Lisp the most popular progamming paradigm in the history of programming
> paradigms that have cheerleaders!
Does Lisp need more cheerleaders or fewer clowns?
-- S
········@gmail.com wrote:
> Jeeeeeeeeez; Try to make a joke and everyone goes all Serious on you!!!
Everyone knows that comp.lang.lisp people have no sense of humor.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> ········@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Jeeeeeeeeez; Try to make a joke and everyone goes all Serious on you!!!
>
>
> Everyone knows that comp.lang.lisp people have no sense of humor.
>
That's not funny!
kt
--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally
won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
You and ... uh ... everyone ... are all being ridiculous. Stop
hammering the groups
with this childish back and forth!
-- Janet
[I just wanted to use that great line again!]