Hi,
I'm a dev with many years experience in other languages. I've been
playing with Lisp for about a year or so, just simple problem solving
and experimentation.
I'd like to start contributing to some open source projects but I
seem unable to find Lisp projects that need devs. I've looked on
Freshmeat/Sourceforge and on cliki. Is it really the case that there
are no open source projects using Lisp that need devs?
The drive behind this is that I'd like to use Lisp in a
professional role but the usual catch-22 applies regarding lack of
experience.
On 15 May 2006 10:01:44 -0700, ··············@Yahoo.Com"
<·············@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
> I'm a dev with many years experience in other languages. I've been
>playing with Lisp for about a year or so, just simple problem solving
>and experimentation.
>
> I'd like to start contributing to some open source projects but I
>seem unable to find Lisp projects that need devs. I've looked on
>Freshmeat/Sourceforge and on cliki. Is it really the case that there
>are no open source projects using Lisp that need devs?
>
> The drive behind this is that I'd like to use Lisp in a
>professional role but the usual catch-22 applies regarding lack of
>experience.
If you're interested in BioInformatics and/or general hacking:
www.biobike.org
·············@Yahoo.Com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a dev with many years experience in other languages. I've been
> playing with Lisp for about a year or so, just simple problem solving
> and experimentation.
>
> I'd like to start contributing to some open source projects but I
> seem unable to find Lisp projects that need devs. I've looked on
> Freshmeat/Sourceforge and on cliki. Is it really the case that there
> are no open source projects using Lisp that need devs?
More projects on common-lisp.net, and search on "cl-gardeners". But
normally this begins with you having a specific interest in having some
library, installing it, finding bugs, offering fixes, away you go.
happy hunting, kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
··············@Yahoo.Com" <·············@Yahoo.Com> writes:
> I'd like to start contributing to some open source projects but I
> seem unable to find Lisp projects that need devs. I've looked on
Here are some suggestions:
CL Gardeners - Tending the Common Lisp garden
http://www.lispniks.com/cl-gardeners/
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
··············@Yahoo.Com" <·············@Yahoo.Com> writes:
> I'd like to start contributing to some open source projects but I
> seem unable to find Lisp projects that need devs. I've looked on
> Freshmeat/Sourceforge and on cliki. Is it really the case that there
> are no open source projects using Lisp that need devs?
I'd advise climacs. The bases are there, but there's still a lot to
do to make it up to the level of emacs.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"I have challenged the entire quality assurance team to a Bat-Leth
contest. They will not concern us again."
On 2006-05-15 18:04:23 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
> ··············@Yahoo.Com" <·············@Yahoo.Com> writes:
>> I'd like to start contributing to some open source projects but I
>> seem unable to find Lisp projects that need devs. I've looked on
>> Freshmeat/Sourceforge and on cliki. Is it really the case that there
>> are no open source projects using Lisp that need devs?
>
> I'd advise climacs. The bases are there, but there's still a lot to
> do to make it up to the level of emacs.
First off, let me state that I in no way mean this question to be a dig
at the climacs developers or users. They are actually writing code as
opposed to simply talking about it which is all most people do.
Having said that, what is the goal of climacs? I hope it's not to
reproduce emacs as, well, I already have emacs and don't need another one.
I think I must be missing the point. Or a readme that explains the goal.
Would someone clue me in?
Thanks.
Novus
Am 16.05.2006 0:26 Uhr schrieb "Novus" unter <·····@ngoqde.org> in
·························@ngoqdeorg:
> On 2006-05-15 18:04:23 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> said:
>
>> ··············@Yahoo.Com" <·············@Yahoo.Com> writes:
>>> I'd like to start contributing to some open source projects but I
>>> seem unable to find Lisp projects that need devs. I've looked on
>>> Freshmeat/Sourceforge and on cliki. Is it really the case that there
>>> are no open source projects using Lisp that need devs?
>>
>> I'd advise climacs. The bases are there, but there's still a lot to
>> do to make it up to the level of emacs.
>
> First off, let me state that I in no way mean this question to be a dig
> at the climacs developers or users. They are actually writing code as
> opposed to simply talking about it which is all most people do.
>
> Having said that, what is the goal of climacs? I hope it's not to
> reproduce emacs as, well, I already have emacs and don't need another one.
> I think I must be missing the point. Or a readme that explains the goal.
The goal is to have a modern editor written in Common Lisp and the McCLIM
user interface management system. This is also a building block for a
McCLIM-based free development environment for Common Lisp written in Common
Lisp.
See also here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/clim-desktop/
On 2006-05-15 18:38:03 -0400, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> said:
> Am 16.05.2006 0:26 Uhr schrieb "Novus" unter <·····@ngoqde.org> in
> ·························@ngoqdeorg:
>
>> First off, let me state that I in no way mean this question to be a dig
>> at the climacs developers or users. They are actually writing code as
>> opposed to simply talking about it which is all most people do.
>>
>> Having said that, what is the goal of climacs? I hope it's not to
>> reproduce emacs as, well, I already have emacs and don't need another one.
>> I think I must be missing the point. Or a readme that explains the goal.
>
> The goal is to have a modern editor written in Common Lisp and the McCLIM
> user interface management system. This is also a building block for a
> McCLIM-based free development environment for Common Lisp written in Common
> Lisp.
Thanks for the reply. So given that we already have free development
environments for Common Lisp then what does having the environment
written in Common Lisp and using McCLIM actually buy us? Other than
to say we did it?
For example, I don't often go looking for a new web browser as I can
already use firefox, mozilla, galeon, konqueror, opera, etc. And I've
never been bothered that any of these free browsers aren't written in
Common Lisp. So why go to all the trouble of writing a program to
duplicate functionality I already have (with a license I can already
tolerate)? So I can't see the point to write yet another web browser
in any language, much less Common Lisp.
I could make the same argument for mail clients, editors, window managers,
etc.
If we were trying to write a BETTER editor in Common Lisp then I could
see the point (although I wouldn't be optimistic about the results). But
duplicating an existing editor that there are already copies of? Editors
are almost like mail clients now -- everyone writes their own. Window
managers are quickly joining the club as well.
But hey, do what you love!
Novus
Novus <·····@ngoqde.org> writes:
> On 2006-05-15 18:38:03 -0400, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> said:
>
>> Am 16.05.2006 0:26 Uhr schrieb "Novus" unter <·····@ngoqde.org> in
>> ·························@ngoqdeorg:
>>
>>> First off, let me state that I in no way mean this question to be a dig
>>> at the climacs developers or users. They are actually writing code as
>>> opposed to simply talking about it which is all most people do.
>>> Having said that, what is the goal of climacs? I hope it's not to
>>> reproduce emacs as, well, I already have emacs and don't need another one.
>>> I think I must be missing the point. Or a readme that explains the goal.
>> The goal is to have a modern editor written in Common Lisp and the
>> McCLIM
>> user interface management system. This is also a building block for a
>> McCLIM-based free development environment for Common Lisp written in Common
>> Lisp.
>
> Thanks for the reply. So given that we already have free development
> environments for Common Lisp then what does having the environment
> written in Common Lisp and using McCLIM actually buy us? Other than
> to say we did it?
When you're a Common Lisp programmer, emacs lisp is a PITA.
You cannot use your Common Lisp package to write your emacs
extensions. You cannot use any advanced programming with emacs
lacking lexical scope, closures, threads, packages, etc. Even simple
things such as string processing is a PITA in emacs, since it lacks
basic standard functions like STRING-TRIM, etc. Moreover, when
writting emacs lisp code, as Common Lisp programmers, we can feel the
hostility toward us from emacs developers: compiling (require 'cl)
suscitate warnings and other deprecating messages like:
In end of data:
pjb-asm7090.el:524:1:Warning: the following functions might not be defined at
runtime: getf, cl-set-getf, subseq, find-if
pjb-cl.el:2704:1:Warning: the following functions might not be defined at
runtime: gensym, subseq, coerce, every, some
> For example, I don't often go looking for a new web browser as I can
> already use firefox, mozilla, galeon, konqueror, opera, etc. And
> I've never been bothered that any of these free browsers aren't
> written in Common Lisp.
That's because you've never wanted to modify them. Happily, I can
easily modify w3, vm, or even gnus since it's written in lisp. I'd be
more happy if I could modify them in Common Lisp.
> So why go to all the trouble of writing a program to duplicate
> functionality I already have (with a license I can already
> tolerate)? So I can't see the point to write yet another web browser
> in any language, much less Common Lisp.
For example, none of my keybindings work in Firefox. C-s does what C-x
C-s would do, C-x o doesn't work, etc, and I cannot write the
simpliest script to browse automatically the web.
> I could make the same argument for mail clients, editors, window managers,
> etc.
I feel you're not really using emacs either...
> If we were trying to write a BETTER editor in Common Lisp then I could
> see the point (although I wouldn't be optimistic about the results). But
> duplicating an existing editor that there are already copies of? Editors
> are almost like mail clients now -- everyone writes their own. Window
> managers are quickly joining the club as well.
Indeed, you don't know what _an_ emacs is. It's the BEST. There's no
point trying to write a BETTER editor. Bar mind reading devices.
(Only, a well polished Common Lisp emacs would be better than GNU emacs).
> But hey, do what you love!
Thanks.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it!
Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!"
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> You cannot use your Common Lisp package to write your emacs
> extensions.
Yes, you can. Well, almost. The Common Lisp implementation for Emacs
doesn't cover everything in the ANSI standard, but that's just a SMOP.
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>> You cannot use your Common Lisp package to write your emacs
>> extensions.
>
> Yes, you can. Well, almost. The Common Lisp implementation for Emacs
> doesn't cover everything in the ANSI standard, but that's just a SMOP.
Yes, perhaps I should install it a try to use it for my emacs
programming. This could make me happy...
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ _ Software patents are endangering
() ASCII ribbon against html email (o_ the computer industry all around
/\ 1962:DO20I=1.100 //\ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
2001:my($f)=`fortune`; V_/ http://petition.eurolinux.org/
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>> You cannot use your Common Lisp package to write your emacs
>> extensions.
>
> Yes, you can. Well, almost. The Common Lisp implementation for Emacs
> doesn't cover everything in the ANSI standard, but that's just a SMOP.
But skimming the documentation, it seems awkward to interface to Emacs
Lisp. Has anyone practical experience?
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to
sharpen sticks. - Thant Tessman
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
> Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
>> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>>> You cannot use your Common Lisp package to write your emacs
>>> extensions.
>> Yes, you can. Well, almost. The Common Lisp implementation for
>> Emacs doesn't cover everything in the ANSI standard, but that's
>> just a SMOP.
> But skimming the documentation, it seems awkward to interface to
> Emacs Lisp. Has anyone practical experience?
All Emacs Lisp symbols are available to Common Lisp in a package
called EMACS-LISP, which is quite convenient. You will likely have to
quote the symbol names to keep them lower case, but I think that
awkwardness is minor.
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
>> Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
>>> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>>>> You cannot use your Common Lisp package to write your emacs
>>>> extensions.
>>> Yes, you can. Well, almost. The Common Lisp implementation for
>>> Emacs doesn't cover everything in the ANSI standard, but that's
>>> just a SMOP.
>> But skimming the documentation, it seems awkward to interface to
>> Emacs Lisp. Has anyone practical experience?
>
> All Emacs Lisp symbols are available to Common Lisp in a package
> called EMACS-LISP, which is quite convenient. You will likely have to
> quote the symbol names to keep them lower case, but I think that
> awkwardness is minor.
Has anyone considered to make symbol names in this Common Lisp
implementation lower-case or provide a "COMMON-LISP-LOWERCASE" package?
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to
sharpen sticks. - Thant Tessman
Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
> Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
>
>> Julian Stecklina <··········@web.de> writes:
>>> Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
>>>> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>>>>> You cannot use your Common Lisp package to write your emacs
>>>>> extensions.
>>>> Yes, you can. Well, almost. The Common Lisp implementation for
>>>> Emacs doesn't cover everything in the ANSI standard, but that's
>>>> just a SMOP.
>>> But skimming the documentation, it seems awkward to interface to
>>> Emacs Lisp. Has anyone practical experience?
>>
>> All Emacs Lisp symbols are available to Common Lisp in a package
>> called EMACS-LISP, which is quite convenient. You will likely have to
>> quote the symbol names to keep them lower case, but I think that
>> awkwardness is minor.
>
> Has anyone considered to make symbol names in this Common Lisp
> implementation lower-case or provide a "COMMON-LISP-LOWERCASE" package?
Don't be silly, it's much more practical to use the :PRESERVE readtable case.
So you can use CAR or car instead of COMMON-LISP:CAR or EMACS-LISP:CAR.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The subatomic particles (electrons,
protons, etc.) comprising this product are exactly the same in every
measurable respect as those used in the products of other
manufacturers, and no claim to the contrary may legitimately be
expressed or implied.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> Don't be silly, it's much more practical to use the :PRESERVE readtable case.
> So you can use CAR or car instead of COMMON-LISP:CAR or EMACS-LISP:CAR.
Cluttering the source with upcase symbols, seems ... old-fashioned, but
might well be a better solution.
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to
sharpen sticks. - Thant Tessman
Julian Stecklina <················@mailbox.tu-dresden.de> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
>
> > Don't be silly, it's much more practical to use the :PRESERVE readtable case.
> > So you can use CAR or car instead of COMMON-LISP:CAR or EMACS-LISP:CAR.
>
> Cluttering the source with upcase symbols, seems ... old-fashioned, but
> might well be a better solution.
With a readtable case of :invert, CL would be lower-case, and Elisp
upper-case, which would probably read quite reasonably:
(defun foo (x)
(SAVE-EXCURSION
(SET-BUFFER (frob))
(loop for thing = (thing)
while thing
do (INSERT (thing thing)))))
Hmm, does save-excursion work from CL?
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> With a readtable case of :invert, CL would be lower-case, and Elisp
> upper-case, which would probably read quite reasonably:
>
> (defun foo (x)
> (SAVE-EXCURSION
> (SET-BUFFER (frob))
> (loop for thing = (thing)
> while thing
> do (INSERT (thing thing)))))
>
> Hmm, does save-excursion work from CL?
Oh, that's right, I don't think you can use Emacs Lisp macros and
special operators in Common Lisp code. That's indeed awkward. I've
used this ugly workaround once:
(defmacro el-defun (symbol string)
`(setf (symbol-function ',symbol)
(el:|byte-compile| (car (el:|read-from-string| ,string)))))
(el-defun ignore-elisp-error
"(lambda (fn)
(condition-case cond (FUNCALL fn)
(error nil)))")
I don't think this would be impossible to fix, e.g. by having the CL
compiler call an Emacs Lisp macroexpander.
Lars Brinkhoff <·········@nocrew.org> writes:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>> (defun foo (x)
>> (SAVE-EXCURSION
>> (SET-BUFFER (frob))
>> (loop for thing = (thing)
>> while thing
>> do (INSERT (thing thing)))))
>> Hmm, does save-excursion work from CL?
> Oh, that's right, I don't think you can use Emacs Lisp macros and
> special operators in Common Lisp code. That's indeed awkward.
I have added support for using elisp macros. It wouldn't be too hard
to support elisp special operators too, if someone would need that feature.
Am 16.05.2006 0:56 Uhr schrieb "Novus" unter <·····@ngoqde.org> in
·························@ngoqdeorg:
> On 2006-05-15 18:38:03 -0400, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> said:
>
>> Am 16.05.2006 0:26 Uhr schrieb "Novus" unter <·····@ngoqde.org> in
>> ·························@ngoqdeorg:
>>
>>> First off, let me state that I in no way mean this question to be a dig
>>> at the climacs developers or users. They are actually writing code as
>>> opposed to simply talking about it which is all most people do.
>>>
>>> Having said that, what is the goal of climacs? I hope it's not to
>>> reproduce emacs as, well, I already have emacs and don't need another one.
>>> I think I must be missing the point. Or a readme that explains the goal.
>>
>> The goal is to have a modern editor written in Common Lisp and the McCLIM
>> user interface management system. This is also a building block for a
>> McCLIM-based free development environment for Common Lisp written in Common
>> Lisp.
>
> Thanks for the reply. So given that we already have free development
> environments for Common Lisp then what does having the environment
> written in Common Lisp and using McCLIM actually buy us? Other than
> to say we did it?
See the various commercial Lisp environments:
- LispWorks
- Allegro CL (Windows/Linux)
- MCL
- Corman CL
Or earlier
InterLisp-D
Genera
and so on.
People are looking into creating a integrated development environment
in the tradition of real GUI-based development environments.
Most other free development environments for Common Lisp are just
based on Emacs and its limited user interface.
> For example, I don't often go looking for a new web browser as I can
> already use firefox, mozilla, galeon, konqueror, opera, etc. And I've
> never been bothered that any of these free browsers aren't written in
> Common Lisp. So why go to all the trouble of writing a program to
> duplicate functionality I already have (with a license I can already
> tolerate)? So I can't see the point to write yet another web browser
> in any language, much less Common Lisp.
A GUI-based development environment based on McCLIM, written in Common Lisp
and having an editor as a component is very different from just
having Emacs.
> I could make the same argument for mail clients, editors, window managers,
> etc.
You can make the argument for everything. In the end there would be
no software written in Common Lisp. But quite to the contrary I
believe that these various tools can have a great benefit
from being written in an extensible way using Common Lisp. We are
here in comp.lang.lisp, because we think that we shouldn't
write software in Common Lisp? And I thought this newsgroup was about
writing software in Lisp? That includes ALL kind of software.
Mail servers and clients. Development environments and window
systems. And all the other stuff, too.
> If we were trying to write a BETTER editor in Common Lisp then I could
> see the point (although I wouldn't be optimistic about the results). But
> duplicating an existing editor that there are already copies of? Editors
I never said 'duplicating'.
> are almost like mail clients now -- everyone writes their own. Window
> managers are quickly joining the club as well.
>
> But hey, do what you love!
>
> Novus
>