From: Daniel Weinreb
Subject: Version 3 of Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
Date:
Message-ID: <8guaj.28853$JW4.10817@trnddc05>
I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
and comments. The paper is at:
http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
On Dec 20, 2:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> and comments. The paper is at:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
Just an old pet peeve of mine. Why do you put the CLIM bit in?
McCLIM is nice, but having it or not is not - IMHO - an important bit
of information.
Cheers
--
Marco
Marco Antoniotti <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Just an old pet peeve of mine. Why do you put the CLIM bit in?
> McCLIM is nice, but having it or not is not - IMHO - an important bit
> of information.
If you need to find an implementation to run some ancient CLIM
program, it is important to have support for it. McCLIM cannot always
be used, as it misses the "implementation history" of the commercial
implementations (meaning, the spec is rather bad and commercial CLIM
differs from it in a few places, or just interprets it differently).
--
\ Troels
/\ Henriksen
From: Daniel Weinreb
Subject: Re: Version 3 of Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
Date:
Message-ID: <KWdbj.4024$we6.3555@trndny09>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
>> GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
>> small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
>> and comments. The paper is at:
>>
>> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> Just an old pet peeve of mine. Why do you put the CLIM bit in?
> McCLIM is nice, but having it or not is not - IMHO - an important bit
> of information.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Marco
>
It's important for people who want to use CLIM. If you don't
care, just ignore it.
-- Dan
On Dec 22, 8:53 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 2:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> >> GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> >> small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> >> and comments. The paper is at:
>
> >>http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> > Just an old pet peeve of mine. Why do you put the CLIM bit in?
> > McCLIM is nice, but having it or not is not - IMHO - an important bit
> > of information.
>
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Marco
>
> It's important for people who want to use CLIM. If you don't
> care, just ignore it.
>
I wanted to! But, as I said, it is a long lasting pet peeve of mine :)
I'd wager that CLX. GTk or whatever, are more important than CLIM
today. But the survey uses CLIM as a "standardized" parameter. IMHO,
CLIM is one of the bad things that happened to the CL community. Of
course this is said with to power of hindsight. Moreover it is your
survey and I still appreciate it very much.
Cheers
--
Marco
Marco Antoniotti <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>> It's important for people who want to use CLIM. �If you don't
>> care, just ignore it.
>>
>
> I wanted to! But, as I said, it is a long lasting pet peeve of mine :)
> I'd wager that CLX. GTk or whatever, are more important than CLIM
> today. But the survey uses CLIM as a "standardized" parameter. IMHO,
> CLIM is one of the bad things that happened to the CL community. Of
> course this is said with to power of hindsight. Moreover it is your
> survey and I still appreciate it very much.
I don't know if you might have said it thousand times already, but why
do you consider CLIM such a bad thing??
From my impression GUI programming in Lisp isn't all that common anyway
and when it is done CLIM is quite central. I might be very wrong,
though.
/Andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: Daniel Weinreb
Subject: Re: Version 3 of Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
Date:
Message-ID: <rutcj.4722$Pt6.2688@trndny07>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> On Dec 22, 8:53 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 2:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
>>>> GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
>>>> small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
>>>> and comments. The paper is at:
>>>> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>>> Just an old pet peeve of mine. Why do you put the CLIM bit in?
>>> McCLIM is nice, but having it or not is not - IMHO - an important bit
>>> of information.
>>> Cheers
>>> --
>>> Marco
>> It's important for people who want to use CLIM. If you don't
>> care, just ignore it.
>>
>
> I wanted to! But, as I said, it is a long lasting pet peeve of mine :)
> I'd wager that CLX. GTk or whatever, are more important than CLIM
> today. But the survey uses CLIM as a "standardized" parameter. IMHO,
> CLIM is one of the bad things that happened to the CL community. Of
> course this is said with to power of hindsight. Moreover it is your
> survey and I still appreciate it very much.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Marco
>
I am perhaps biased by being close friends with the CLIM creators,
and by the fact that it is based on some Lisp machine technology
that, while flawed and immature, I was fond of.
On Dec 20, 3:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> and comments. The paper is at:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
Do you consider creating a Wikipedia entry for that? (Similar to
"Comparison of relational database management systems" page. Maybe
with a title like "Comparsion of Common Lisp implementations".)
Regards.
On Dec 20, 9:22 am, Volkan YAZICI <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 3:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> > GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> > small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> > and comments. The paper is at:
>
> >http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> Do you consider creating a Wikipedia entry for that? (Similar to
> "Comparison of relational database management systems" page. Maybe
> with a title like "Comparsion of Common Lisp implementations".)
>
> Regards.
I found adding or editing anything in Wikipedia virtually impossible
by new members. Wikipedia is now a gated community. They have a lot
of nice articles but community spirit is lost. I would never submit or
edit anything in wikipedia again. Absolute power corrupts even non-
profit organizations. Maybe google knol will make them rethink their
position.
cheers
Slobodan
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Version 3 of Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
Date:
Message-ID: <uk5n8rxq2.fsf@nhplace.com>
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> On Dec 20, 9:22 am, Volkan YAZICI <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 3:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> > > GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> > > small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> > > and comments. The paper is at:
> >
> > >http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
> >
> > Do you consider creating a Wikipedia entry for that? (Similar to
> > "Comparison of relational database management systems" page. Maybe
> > with a title like "Comparsion of Common Lisp implementations".)
> >
> > Regards.
>
> I found adding or editing anything in Wikipedia virtually impossible
> by new members. Wikipedia is now a gated community.
I created accounts for myself quite recently (within the last year)
and have had no trouble making Lisp-related edits. I created a new
CGOL entry and no one has undone that. (I've only done edits in the
English version, though I have three accounts "just in case"--my sense
is that the other language Wikipedias are even more thirsty for
participation, I just haven't figured out their policies on
translation vs new writing.)
I _have_ seen that people disagree with one another, and even
sometimes undo each others' work for reasons of cause I disagreed
with, but not for reasons that had no basis. I haven't seen the
system break down ... nor do I see how a system based on open
participation can do otherwise with any reliability. The discussion
areas for the Lisp topics seem to get used productively, if slowly.
I'd say go ahead and use it for our purposes unless a problem can be
shown, then discuss the problem openly in the appropriate areas with
proper specifics.
> They have a lot of nice articles but community spirit is lost. I
> would never submit or edit anything in wikipedia again. Absolute
> power corrupts even non- profit organizations.
It may. But I don't know that whatever global factors you're talking
about, whether or not they are happening, are in fact impeding things
in the small corner of Wikipedia related to Lisp.
> Maybe google knol will make them rethink their position.
Competition in healthy, but in fact my personal take on it is that
knol is carving out a different competition space and knol will bring
its own problems for which I hope competition arises.
In article
<····································@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:22 am, Volkan YAZICI <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 3:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> > > GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> > > small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> > > and comments. The paper is at:
> >
> > >http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
> >
> > Do you consider creating a Wikipedia entry for that? (Similar to
> > "Comparison of relational database management systems" page. Maybe
> > with a title like "Comparsion of Common Lisp implementations".)
> >
> > Regards.
>
> I found adding or editing anything in Wikipedia virtually impossible
> by new members. Wikipedia is now a gated community. They have a lot
> of nice articles but community spirit is lost. I would never submit or
> edit anything in wikipedia again. Absolute power corrupts even non-
> profit organizations. Maybe google knol will make them rethink their
> position.
Sounds like FUD.
>
> cheers
> Slobodan
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
On Dec 21, 3:38 am, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 9:22 am, Volkan YAZICI <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 3:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> > > > GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> > > > small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> > > > and comments. The paper is at:
>
> > > >http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> > > Do you consider creating a Wikipedia entry for that? (Similar to
> > > "Comparison of relational database management systems" page. Maybe
> > > with a title like "Comparsion of Common Lisp implementations".)
>
> > > Regards.
>
> > I found adding or editing anything in Wikipedia virtually impossible
> > by new members. Wikipedia is now a gated community. They have a lot
> > of nice articles but community spirit is lost. I would never submit or
> > edit anything in wikipedia again. Absolute power corrupts even non-
> > profit organizations. Maybe google knol will make them rethink their
> > position.
>
> Sounds like FUD.
I've created account about few weeks ago, and tried to add page about
Weblocks and include it at web frameworks using continuations along
with UCW.
The addition was updated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation#Continuations_in_Web_development
but they didn't included my new page. First I only did some copy
pasting from weblocks intro page ,but wikipedia bot complained, so I
wrote short intro myself, submitted it and the page isn't there, and
nobody told me why. If they don't want new members to add pages, or
have some specific guide how the new pages should look like let them
say so. Now I don't give a damn, I will not add or edit anything to
wikipedia. YMMV
Slobodan
>
>
>
> > cheers
> > Slobodan
>
> --http://lispm.dyndns.org/
From: Daniel Weinreb
Subject: Re: Version 3 of Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
Date:
Message-ID: <F1ebj.481$ML6.199@trndny04>
Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> On Dec 20, 3:39 pm, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
>> GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
>> small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
>> and comments. The paper is at:
>>
>> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> Do you consider creating a Wikipedia entry for that? (Similar to
> "Comparison of relational database management systems" page. Maybe
> with a title like "Comparsion of Common Lisp implementations".)
>
>
> Regards.
I just added a link from Wikipedia's "Common Lisp" page
to the survey paper. Thank you for the idea.
-- Dan
Please people, by all means, add and edit to Wikipedia lisp related
info!
I've been reading and editing Wikipedia like for 2 to 8 hours every
damn day since about 2003-11. (mostly just reading in the past year)
My website has over 3500 links to Wikipedia, and i basically read
every article i've linked to. For each article i have linked, there
are about 10 more articles i've read.
I read encycolpedias with greed like a leech sucking on blood since
~1992. And i can tell you, with my life's saving on the table, that
Wikipedia today as it is in terms of quality and quantity, in depth
and in breadth, and all things considered, is FAR beyond any 10
professional encyclopedias and or specialized encyclopedias and
references and compendiums and annals COMBINED! (this includes, for
example, Encyclopedia Britanica, and any specialized math encyclopedia
or computing encyclopedia) (take a minute to ponder the gravity of
this claim. And, if you like, try to spend few hours verify it) (i'd
write more detail to back up this claim but that's be adding another
thousand words to this already long post.)
And when i read computing related articles in Wikipedia, i see
motherfucking Perl this and Python that and Ruby this and Java that
and how versatile they are fucking shit everywhere inappropriately,
but which you can't touch because anytime you try to correct, the
motherfuckers that are these (innocently or otherwise) ingorant yet
fanatical tech geekers ARMY of them revert it back. While, in places i
see where lisp info is appropriate, it's not there! And on occation in
recent months i mentioned particluar pages in lisp or scheme groups,
these fucking aloof shitheads think they all above it and do nothing.
(especially the Schemers. Fuck them. Die!)
Although personally i too have gripes and political issues with
Wikipedia, or some of its policies, and sour grape syndrome on how it
should be or should not be, but overall i have the highest esteem for
Wikipedia, and Wikipedia considered in social framework in my opinion
is changing the world in a global scale, far more powerful than any
organized religion or political group (such as the George Bush
motherfucker). If a calamity by Zeus is to fall upon this earth and
wipe out all websites for good except one, that one should be
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not only the supreme force in changing us human animal's
social structure and outlook, it is also leading many good technology
in many ways. For example, it is a prime (and perhaps effectively the
ONLY) force in pushing svg, ogg formats, and due to Wikipedia's
immense popularity, its force is so powerful in a practical way that
even the combined commerical mega corporations with their proprietary
formats will fear (you name it: Apple's music/video formats,
Microsoft's, Adobe's PDF and Flash stuff...etc). (Note: i'm not
against proprietary formats.)
And, it is just about the ONLY high-trafficked website that produces
valid HTML. Imagine that, folks. (in various language and tech groups,
such as python, perl, lisp etc all claim superiority, but one look at
the html docs they produced, all are motherfucking invalid html with
errors lighting up like a Xmas tree.) (Wikipedia's traffic is ranked
within top 10 or so in Alexa.com for the past 2 or more years. (my
website is ranked ~80k and every single 3400+ HTML pages on my website
is correct (aka valid) HTML too))
Sure, Wikipedia is getting big now and fat, with big power, but let's
not all be too tech geeking cynical about corruption. FSF/OpenSource
is pretty big now like a juggernaunt too. (In fact, you can consider
Wikipedia as rather a _direct_ product of FSF's ideals. (further, i'd
argue that the primary force of FSF, lies in its GPL, and the power
that drove GPL, is its cruel, unforgiving, $B!H(Bfuck you$B!I(B nature of its
$B!H(Bfight fire with fire$B!I(B aspect, eagerly operated and cultured by the
cruel, unforgiving, aggresive, males (mostly young) specie of the
human animals society.))
So, lispers, go read and edit Wikipedia! You don't have to devote your
precious time and knowledge to do edit-wars with Perl or Python army
of morons on board, but when at leisure or chance upon, do try to
correct or add info as you see fit.
PS Thanks Volkan Yazici on suggesting adding info to Wikipedia in this
thread. Great suggestion!
Further readings:
$B!z(B The Engine of Wikipedia
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/wikipedia_engine.html
$B!z(B Encyclopedia, My experiences
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/encyclopedia.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
$B-t(B http://xahlee.org/
From: Maciej Katafiasz
Subject: Re: Version 3 of Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
Date:
Message-ID: <fkdsn7$sn5$5@news.net.uni-c.dk>
Den Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:39:16 +0000 skrev Daniel Weinreb:
> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey". GCL
> (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many small
> corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections and comments.
> The paper is at:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
* There's still no <title> set, which makes it real hard to find amongst
all my FF windows and tabs.
* A trivial typo in GCL section: "dubuggable".
Cheers,
Maciej
On Dec 20, 5:39 am, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I have posted Version 3 of "Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey".
> GCL (Gnu Common Lisp) is now included. There have also been many
> small corrections. Thanks to everyone who submitted corrections
> and comments. The paper is at:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
Hi Daniel,
Here's my little feedback:
$B!z(B Break the pages please!
For example, each CL implementation would be a h2 heading with links
to its own page.
This will make reading much easier. For example, readers might want to
compare 2 or more implementations by looking at your writings of them
in parallel. Also, a single monolithic page is really a pain to scroll
and getting a general feelings of the content.
Breaking pages will also help search engines (and readers) locate your
site. For example, a monolithic page as you have... people might
arrive by searching for Clommon Lisp Implementations. However, if you
break it down, each implementation on a page, and a page on
recommendation about why people should use lisp, then search engines
will direct people to those particular pages depending on what they
searched.
A a geek, you might think breaking the page is a pain, since
monolithic is easier to maintain, search, print. Breaking the page
will mean multiple pages, maintaining links, etc. But trust me, it's
worth the effort if you care about your readers.
try reading this page:
Tetris AI, by Colin Fahey
http://colinfahey.com/tetris/tetris.html
and see if you don't find monolithic page a pain when reading others.
monolithic page also tends to drop readers. i.e. when i read a page
that's looong, i tend to skim and abort. If you have each on a page,
people are able to choose to read sections of interest to them. (there
is also a psychological factor going on here. Notice how your junk
postal mail's advertisements always come in many many separate
colorful pamphlets and small papers, each sometimes just have one
sentence? Because if a advertisement comes in a gloriously printed
simple booklet, people see it and throws it away right away. But if
each page comes as a page or notecard, it's slower to discard, and
people tends to exam each before doing so.)
I used to have monolithic pages, but decided to change all few years
ago.
$B!z(B Seperate the non-main topics into their own page.
Of my writings over the past 7 or so years for my website, i find that
people like pages to be focused. For example, i have a java tutorial.
I used to mix up teaching with ranting. No, people don't like that.
Not necessarily because they don't find the teaching good, nor because
they find the ranting bad. But because of the unfocused or dual-
purpose nature, it's harder to categorize it or make a impression.
Similarly for my emacs pages. I made it now so that pages tend to be
very focused on a particular technical topic, or if i want to rant or
have writings on personal, or social subjects related to emacs, i put
those each on a page by itself (and tries to focus on a particular
subject as much as possible, with full examples, scenarios, ...etc.)
Basically, about 7 years writing on my website i find that, putting
page into focused single topic is very important to get people to link/
read it.
In this regard, i feel it is better to completely drop the lisp
advocacy sections (the Paper,Success Stories, Textbooks, Resources,
Beauty), or move them into a page dedicated to lisp advocacy.
$B!z(B lastly, personally i'd prefer the lines be wrapped automatically at
70 char or so. Arguably, any reader can resize her window. But that's
a extra step. Besides, these days people usually have lots of tabs.
Rezising one into narrow strip means screwing up all others. Common
top 100 ranked sites today pretty much assume you have at least 1024
width.
(you can do this by
<style type="text/css">
p {line-height:130%; width:70ex;}
</style>
at top inside the head section, or many other ways.
)
Thanks. Great survey.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
$B-t(B http://xahlee.org/