Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional programming
language which supports multi programming paradigms / various
programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
················@gmail.com wrote:
> Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional programming
> language which supports multi programming paradigms / various
Idiot, so a language isn't ``really'' object oriented if it doesn't
exclude everything else?
Maybe you aren't ``really'' a programmer because you also support the
trolling paradigm in addition to being a programmer.
> programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
One of those styles is also imperative programming, so what you're
saying is that Lisp is a functional language that supports looping and
assignment to memory locations.
Object orientation itself isn't enough to make a programming language
that does anything. You need to be able to operate either functionally
(I really mean lazily) or imperatively (I really mean strictly), or
both.
Object orientation alone is only sufficient to model things, not do
things.
Lisp predates object orientation. You can say, as CL does, that
everything is an object, but that's fairly meaningless.
On Jan 24, 8:45 am, ···············@gmail.com"
<··············@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can say, as CL does, that everything is an object, but that's fairly meaningless.
Being able to specialize any parameter of a generic function to a basic
type like number, string or symbol is far from meaningless.
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Idiot, so a language isn't ``really'' object oriented if it doesn't
> exclude everything else?
>
> Maybe you aren't ``really'' a programmer because you also support the
> trolling paradigm in addition to being a programmer.
Sir, it would be so unfair to flame / make fun / insult me without
knowing the context in which I am asking the question. In case you
don't know, English is not my first language so there might have been
some problem in my question framing. Also I am not one of those people
who like to start language fight, its just that one of my friend stated
that LISP is object oriented so I wanted to know how exactly the
classification of language takes place.
> One of those styles is also imperative programming, so what you're
> saying is that Lisp is a functional language that supports looping and
> assignment to memory locations.
I was not stating anything, I was asking a question, and asking as in
trying to know about something.
On 24 Jan, 21:45, ···············@gmail.com" <··············@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Object orientation itself isn't enough to make a programming language
> that does anything. You need to be able to operate either functionally
> (I really mean lazily) or imperatively (I really mean strictly), or
> both.
> Object orientation alone is only sufficient to model things, not do
> things.
>
> Lisp predates object orientation. You can say, as CL does, that
> everything is an object, but that's fairly meaningless.
I guess I got confused between paradigms and language types, is it ?
My friend also stated "LISP the first language to be considered by ANSI
as a full blown object oriented language". Is he correct in saying this
?
Hi there,
Please don't take all of these posts too seriously. We Lispers are
easily annoyed by people who ask questions that are likely to cause
flamewars, even if they were not intended that way. That's because
there are lots of ignorant fools out there who don't want to learn
anything new.
Anyway, I think you phrased your question in an ambiguous way. What is
it you're asking? There are two possible interpretations of your
question. I am going to answer both. Also note that I am talking about
Common Lisp. These facts do not (!) apply to Scheme or other languages
of the (rather large) Lisp family.
Question A: Is Lisp truly an object-oriented language in the usual
sense of the word, that is, does it support classes and methods, and is
every Lisp object an object in the sense that it is an instance of a
class?
Answer A: Yes! Common Lisp has got classes and methods all right. It's
actually even more object-oriented than, say, Java, because primitive
types are classes, too! (Java, in contrast, doesn't let you put
integers into lists, for example, because they aren't instances... God
knows why.) As Lisp supports the functional paradigm (which means that
functions are normal Lisp objects), even functions are class instances
(FUNCTION is actually a valid Common Lisp class).
Question B: Is Lisp only (!) object-oriented? Does it force you to use
classes all the time, as Java does?
Answer B: No! You can do pretty well without using any classes, methods
etc. Lisp allows you to write functional code, procedural code,
object-oriented procedural code, object-oriented functional code and
whatnot. If you are so inclined, you can even teach Common Lisp to
allow any other paradigm you can think of (Prolog-like logic
programming, for example).
All in all, yes, your friend is right. Common Lisp is a wonderful
language to program in, even if you are an OOP-whore :)
Mata ne,
Matthias
Matthias Benkard wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Please don't take all of these posts too seriously. We Lispers are
> easily annoyed by people who ask questions that are likely to cause
> flamewars, even if they were not intended that way. That's because
> there are lots of ignorant fools out there who don't want to learn
> anything new.
No..nothing serious, I was just shocked to see the tone adopted for
someone who has asked a simple question without the remote idea or even
a hint of starting a language war. Glad to know that even people like
you exist on google groups. :-)
> Anyway, I think you phrased your question in an ambiguous way. What is
> it you're asking?
Yes I guess so, maybe because English is not my first language.
> Question A: Is Lisp truly an object-oriented language in the usual
> sense of the word, that is, does it support classes and methods, and is
> every Lisp object an object in the sense that it is an instance of a
> class?
>
> Answer A: Yes! Common Lisp has got classes and methods all right. It's
> actually even more object-oriented than, say, Java, because primitive
> types are classes, too! (Java, in contrast, doesn't let you put
> integers into lists, for example, because they aren't instances... God
> knows why.) As Lisp supports the functional paradigm (which means that
> functions are normal Lisp objects), even functions are class instances
> (FUNCTION is actually a valid Common Lisp class).
Yes this is what I wanted to ask, since I already know that LISP is
really flexible and doesn't force the programmer to stick to one
programming style. Thanks for the clarification.
Maybe I ought to apologize to my friend since I wrote to him
unknowingly:
"Type of programming language should not be confused with what the
langauge is capable of doing.
Pure object oriented langauges are langauges of the type Java, C# etc.
wherein you have to have a class -- it is a must. As a matter of fact
even C++ isn't a object oriented language as such, it would be more
appropriate to call it a Multi paradigm supported langauge since you
can write imperative as well as object oriented code.
In the same way it would be inappropriate to call Javascript and ASP
technology as Object oriented langauges -- they are object Based
languages which utilise objects.
LISP, ML etc. are functional languages though LISP shines out to be a
multi pardigm supporting language with support for OO features.
BTW object orientedness is all about classes and not objects -- that
would be object based you are talking about..."
Also when reading an online article related to language design, I came
across this classification:
* Imperative - C, Ada, Pascal, Modula 2
* Functional - LISP, FP
* Aggregate - SQL, Mathematica
* Concurrent - SR, Lynx
* Dataflow language - Val, Sisal, Post
* Declarative - Prolog, Godel
* Object Oriented - C++, Java, C#
How are these classifications made ? Are they based on the way a
language can be used ? If LISP is capable of supporting different
programming styles why is it more popularly known as Functional
Programming language ?
Thanks a lot for your valuable time and effort....
On Jan 24, 6:31 pm, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> Matthias Benkard wrote:
> someone who has asked a simple question without the remote idea or even
> a hint of starting a language war. Glad to know that even people like
> you exist on google groups. :-)
What you are talking about was once a contentious topic, and in some
places still is.
For example, some people do not see a language as being properly
"object
orientated" unless the programmer must use object orientation and no
other
paradigm. The reaction was rather extreme though.
> Maybe I ought to apologize to my friend since I wrote to him
> unknowingly:
> "Type of programming language should not be confused with what the
> langauge is capable of doing.
>
> Pure object oriented langauges are langauges of the type Java, C# etc.
> wherein you have to have a class -- it is a must. As a matter of fact
> even C++ isn't a object oriented language as such, it would be more
> appropriate to call it a Multi paradigm supported langauge since you
> can write imperative as well as object oriented code.
Yes. Huge C++ programs have been written with no classes in them at
all.
> In the same way it would be inappropriate to call Javascript and ASP
> technology as Object oriented langauges -- they are object Based
> languages which utilise objects.
That would be one possible set of terms that could be used.
Another would be to define class based OO as one kind of OO.
Languages with Class based OO: C++, Java, C#, Common Lisp
Languages with Prototype based OO: Javascript, self
I don't know how the features of VB should be described.
(Recently someone wrote a library that makes Common Lisp capable of
prototype-based OO too.)
> LISP, ML etc. are functional languages though LISP shines out to be a
> multi pardigm supporting language with support for OO features.
>
> BTW object orientedness is all about classes and not objects -- that
> would be object based you are talking about..."
>
> Also when reading an online article related to language design, I came
> across this classification:
>
> * Imperative - C, Ada, Pascal, Modula 2
> * Functional - LISP, FP
> * Aggregate - SQL, Mathematica
> * Concurrent - SR, Lynx
> * Dataflow language - Val, Sisal, Post
> * Declarative - Prolog, Godel
> * Object Oriented - C++, Java, C#
> How are these classifications made ? Are they based on the way a
> language can be used ? If LISP is capable of supporting different
> programming styles why is it more popularly known as Functional
> Programming language ?
The list isn't particularly complete or accurate. Almost all Lisp
programs use imperative programming like C programs as well as
functional programming. Similarly many C++ programs use only
imperative programming and no OO. Writing the table the other way
around is more useful.
>From my knowledge of a few languages:-
C: Imperative
C++, C#, Java: Imperative, Object Orientated
Ada: Imperative, Object Orientated
Mathematica: Imperative, Aggregate, Functional
Common Lisp: Imperative, Functional, Object Orientated
"Rob Thorpe" <·······@realworldtech.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ·····························@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 6:31 pm, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> ... Writing the table the other way
> around is more useful.
>>From my knowledge of a few languages:-
>
> C: Imperative
> C++, C#, Java: Imperative, Object Orientated
> Ada: Imperative, Object Orientated
> Mathematica: Imperative, Aggregate, Functional
> Common Lisp: Imperative, Functional, Object Orientated
>
Hi,
I'd second this. But I though the three main paradigms of CS are imperative, functional and declarative/logic. So I'm missing the language Prolog and the delarative/logic style.
Andreas
················@gmail.com wrote:
> Matthias Benkard wrote:
>
>>Hi there,
>>
>>Please don't take all of these posts too seriously. We Lispers are
>>easily annoyed by people who ask questions that are likely to cause
>>flamewars, even if they were not intended that way. That's because
>>there are lots of ignorant fools out there who don't want to learn
>>anything new.
>
>
> No..nothing serious, I was just shocked to see the tone adopted for
> someone who has asked a simple question without the remote idea or even
> a hint of starting a language war.
Oh, spare us. You reek of "troll", more and more so the more you write.
Your original question sounds like a three year old, yet surprise
surprise you know all about these other languages and debate languages
with "a friend" (chya). You clearly know how to use Google, so the only
possible explanation for your original query is "troll". Had you posted
a deep question reflecting a couple hours (or minutes) Googling Lisp and
CLOS you would have been treated intelligently.
Instead, well, if you will excuse me I have to go find the key to the
kennel, the hounds want to say "hi".
kenny
ps. Your imaginary friend is the oldest troll cover in the book, try
something else. k
(message (Hello ·················@gmail.com)
(you :wrote :on '(24 Jan 2007 10:31:36 -0800))
(
gs> * Object Oriented - C++, Java, C#
gs> How are these classifications made ?
this is not a classification. (that's why people didn't like your question).
what does 'object oriented' mean? it's a buzzword. it's used to promote
languages -- you know, Java and C# are made by a large companies, and they
need to promote it. but it has NO meaning to people who really understand
stuff -- that's why people don't like your question.
'object oriented' is none-sense word. well, it's possible to say that Java
is an object oriented IMPERATIVE language.
that means that Java is an IMPERATIVE language, and does not differ much
from other imperative languages, like Ada.. up to Algol..
but Java authors learned that 'object oriented' is very cool. they use this
words in advertisiment -- "our object oriented language will make
programming better!". that's why they force people to use classes -- it's
not possible to write code not in class in Java.
but if you take a closer look, it's just a thin layer of syntatic sugar --
you just write
object.method(param);
instead of
object-method(object, param);
is this difference that vast to call Java purely object oriented? certainly
not..
it's just an imperative language.
however, we can distinguish procedural and object-oriented imperative
programming languages. idea of object-oriented thing is to move focus on
data structures rather than algorithms -- so code is arranged around data
structure (called object or class). this way code appear to be more
organized..
so, 'object oriented' is not a type of a language, it's just a way of
organizing code. if language make such organization comfortable, you can say
that it supports object oriented programming. you can do object oriented
programming in C, but it's not comfortable. Java tries to enforce object
oriented organization -- but it's not possible, programmers can create a
single class and lots of static methods :). you know, in some cases static
methods are more natural. classes that are just containers for a bunch of
static methods show you ugliness of Java..
gs> Thanks a lot for your valuable time and effort....
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
On Jan 24, 7:25 pm, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> what does 'object oriented' mean? it's a buzzword. it's used to promote
> languages -- you know, Java and C# are made by a large companies, and they
> need to promote it. but it has NO meaning to people who really understand
> stuff -- that's why people don't like your question.
If OO was solely about promotion, then presumably Smalltalk is the most
popular language today?
> 'object oriented' is none-sense word. well, it's possible to say that Java
> is an object oriented IMPERATIVE language.
> that means that Java is an IMPERATIVE language, and does not differ much
> from other imperative languages, like Ada.. up to Algol..
> but Java authors learned that 'object oriented' is very cool. they use this
> words in advertisiment -- "our object oriented language will make
> programming better!". that's why they force people to use classes -- it's
> not possible to write code not in class in Java.
> but if you take a closer look, it's just a thin layer of syntatic sugar --
> you just write
>
> object.method(param);
>
> instead of
>
> object-method(object, param);
It would make more sense to write:
class-method(object, param)
- since you were taking Java as an exemplar of OO. It's also
significant that you can't write:
some-other-class-method(object, param)
> is this difference that vast to call Java purely object oriented? certainly
> not..
> it's just an imperative language.
Java is not purely object oriented. It's not just primitives - neither
methods nor classes are objects. Using Java to criticise OO is like
using SQL to criticise functional languages.
> however, we can distinguish procedural and object-oriented imperative
> programming languages. idea of object-oriented thing is to move focus on
> data structures rather than algorithms -- so code is arranged around data
> structure (called object or class). this way code appear to be more
> organized..
>
> so, 'object oriented' is not a type of a language, it's just a way of
> organizing code. if language make such organization comfortable, you can say
> that it supports object oriented programming. you can do object oriented
> programming in C, but it's not comfortable. Java tries to enforce object
> oriented organization -- but it's not possible, programmers can create a
> single class and lots of static methods :). you know, in some cases static
> methods are more natural. classes that are just containers for a bunch of
> static methods show you ugliness of Java..
>
> gs> Thanks a lot for your valuable time and effort....
>
> )
> (With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
> "People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
(message (Hello ·······@gingerbread.plus.com)
(you :wrote :on '(25 Jan 2007 06:28:35 -0800))
(
??>> what does 'object oriented' mean? it's a buzzword. it's used to
??>> promote languages -- you know, Java and C# are made by a large
??>> companies, and they need to promote it. but it has NO meaning to
??>> people who really understand stuff -- that's why people don't like
??>> your question.
g> If OO was solely about promotion, then presumably Smalltalk is the most
g> popular language today?
it's not solely about promotion, calling language 'really object oriented'
is a shameless promotion, especially if language is based on plain old C. it
was an interesting new feature first, and then became a buzzword..
??>> object.method(param);
??>>
??>> instead of
??>>
??>> object-method(object, param);
g> It would make more sense to write:
g> class-method(object, param)
g> - since you were taking Java as an exemplar of OO. It's also
g> significant that you can't write:
g> some-other-class-method(object, param)
it was just a quick example.. if we take in account virtual methods, it
looks like that:
obj.foo(bar);
vs.
obj.vtbl[FOO](obj, bar);
??>> is this difference that vast to call Java purely object oriented?
??>> certainly not.. it's just an imperative language.
g> Java is not purely object oriented. It's not just primitives - neither
g> methods nor classes are objects. Using Java to criticise OO is like
g> using SQL to criticise functional languages.
i don't want to criticise OO -- i wan't to criticise people who claim that
Java is 'really object oriented' language, and who claim that it's a major
paradigm. nobody can use only object-orientation for writting algorithms,
it's not equivalent to Turing-machine -- it only can be used together with
some other paradigm, like imperative or functional. don't you agree that
it's mostly an ideology about code organization, rather than some
fundamental computation theory thing?
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
On Jan 25, 3:01 pm, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> i don't want to criticise OO -- i wan't to criticise people who claim that
> Java is 'really object oriented' language, and who claim that it's a major
> paradigm. nobody can use only object-orientation for writting algorithms,
> it's not equivalent to Turing-machine -- it only can be used together with
> some other paradigm, like imperative or functional. don't you agree that
> it's mostly an ideology about code organization, rather than some
> fundamental computation theory thing?
Unfortunately, while I agree that it isn't a fundamental concept, I
also think that it (OO, not Java) is a major paradigm :)
That's not to say that it's the only paradigm, or even the best
paradigm, but it's a good paradigm. What it does is gather together
ideas such as encapsulation and polymorphism into a framework where it
is harder not to use them.
(message (Hello ·················@gmail.com)
(you :wrote :on '(24 Jan 2007 10:31:36 -0800))
(
gs> Also when reading an online article related to language design, I came
gs> across this classification:
gs> * Imperative - C, Ada, Pascal, Modula 2
gs> * Functional - LISP, FP
gs> * Aggregate - SQL, Mathematica
gs> * Concurrent - SR, Lynx
gs> * Dataflow language - Val, Sisal, Post
gs> * Declarative - Prolog, Godel
gs> * Object Oriented - C++, Java, C#
gs> How are these classifications made ?
not all articless are equally useful. you'd better use wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming_language
a.. Languages called "pure" OO languages, because everything in them is
treated consistently as an object, from primitives such as characters and
punctuation, all the way up to whole classes, prototypes, blocks, modules,
etc. They were designed specifically to facilitate, even enforce, OO
methods. Examples: Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ruby.
a.. Languages designed mainly for OO programming, but with some procedural
elements. Examples: Java, Python.
a.. Languages that are historically procedural languages, but have been
extended with some OO features. Examples: C++, Fortran 2003, Perl.
so, languages you've noted as an example are not "pure" OO.
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
On 25 Jan, 00:35, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, spare us. You reek of "troll", more and more so the more you write.
> Your original question sounds like a three year old, yet surprise
> surprise you know all about these other languages and debate languages
> with "a friend" (chya). You clearly know how to use Google, so the only
> possible explanation for your original query is "troll". Had you posted
> a deep question reflecting a couple hours (or minutes) Googling Lisp and
> CLOS you would have been treated intelligently.
>
>
> ps. Your imaginary friend is the oldest troll cover in the book, try
> something else. k
Its strange how people with knowledge would rather be sarcastic than
post some intelligent and non-insulting answers like some respected
people here have posted without getting into what you so call the
"language war". There is no imaginary friend here, I am talking about
my friend Rashakil who is currently doing BS in Mathematics and works
mostly with LISP and Haskell. I myself have dabbled a bit with
Javascript / ASP / VB / C++ / C / HTML but never quite grasped the
concept of what makes these languages imperative or object oriented or
functional.
Its really easy to make assumptions sitting where you are, and having
your own fun time poking fun at beginners or inquisitive people who
come here asking for help. And as far as googling is concerned, these
forums and newsgroups exists for a reason, don't they ? So that I can
stand on the shoulder of the giants and see the reality rather than
stretching myself too thin....Well I guess the world is made of
different kinds of people and Sir, you are one of them.....
Btw, thanks a lot Mr. Alex Mirazi, Mr. Rob Thorpe, Mr. Matthias Benkard
and all the others for sharing their valuable knowledge with me, even
when I was labeled as a "TROLL"....It is really appreciated.
I asked the question of categorization since before designing a
language and its compiler, the designer / creator must be making some
decisions on how he wants his language to be....I asked the question
since i wanted to understand their reasoning when they described their
languages.
Thanks to you guys I now understand that OO is just a syntactic sugar
and a way of organizing code rather than a type of language -- will
keep this in mind.
On Jan 24, 8:26 pm, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> On 25 Jan, 00:35, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> .. Javascript / ASP / VB / C++ / C / HTML but never quite grasped the
> concept of what makes these languages imperative or object oriented or
> functional.
Wikipedias descriptions of the paradigms are quite good:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
The most fungible of those is Object-orientated programming.
Tim Rentsch said in 1982:
` ...object oriented programming will be in the 1980's what structured
programming was in the 1970's. Everyone will be in favor of it. Every
manufacturer will promote his products as supporting it. Every manager
will pay lip service to it. Every programmer will practice it
(differently). And
no one will know just what it is.''
He was somewhat right. Although C++, C# and Java take a fairly similar
attitude to OOP many other object-orientated languages are very
different.
In Common Lisp for example methods can be added to an object/class at
runtime.
> Thanks to you guys I now understand that OO is just a syntactic sugar
> and a way of organizing code rather than a type of language -- will
> keep this in mind.
You can look at it that way. I see it this way, you can work in two
ways...
* You can begin with an imperative language, or a language that is
both imperative and functional. You can then add syntatic sugar to
that
language to support OO.
* Or you can start with an OO language, which must in general be
imperative too. You can then add more imperative features.
The first way is the one used in practice. But, it doesn't really
matter
where OO is supported.
The situation with Imperative programming and Functional programming
is more difficult. One can't be emulated using the other with complete
satisfaction.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:18 -0800, Rob Thorpe wrote:
> * Or you can start with an OO language, which must in general be
> imperative too. You can then add more imperative features.
In a sense, that's a given: OO is all about data structures, and the
modification of state. "Show me your data structures and I won't usually
need your code; it'll be obvious."
The new wrinkle in the OO world is the type calculus of ML, and the
extensions to OO in ocaml. There the "data structures" fall out of the
functional signatures. That's not how the method grew up, through simula
and smalltalk, though.
--
Andrew
On Jan 26, 12:17 am, Andrew Reilly
<···············@areilly.bpc-users.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:18 -0800, Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > * Or you can start with an OO language, which must in general be
> > imperative too. You can then add more imperative features.In a sense, that's a given: OO is all about data structures, and the
> modification of state. "Show me your data structures and I won't usually
> need your code; it'll be obvious."
That's an interesting way of putting it. I guess it comes down to Tim
Rentsch's words above, but I was taught exactly the reverse. When I
first read about OO programming the books said that the idea was to
completely remove interfaces that depended on data-structures. The
idea was that every bit of information was returned by some method or
other and that only the methods of an object need know the contents of
the fields.
On Jan 26, 9:03 am, "Rob Thorpe" <·······@realworldtech.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:17 am, Andrew Reilly
> Rentsch's words above, but I was taught exactly the reverse. When I
> first read about OO programming the books said that the idea was to
> completely remove interfaces that depended on data-structures. The
> idea was that every bit of information was returned by some method or
> other and that only the methods of an object need know the contents of
> the fields.
The idea is more that the data structures will still exist, it's just
that having an interface removes the dependency on specific fields
being present and having specific values used in specific ways.
I don't think you can have meaningful object oriented programming with
objects, objects being essentially sets of fields.
Justin
I don't see why it's necessary to be rude to what was probably a
first-time poster. If he's a troll or you consider the question below
you, then ignore him. If you think it's a legitimate question and you
have time to answer, then answer it and move on with your life.
Furthermore, if you think he's a troll, why waste your time fighting
with him?
Come on, we're supposed to be advocates for the best programming
language EVER. Let's live up to the high standards of our language :)
mfh
············@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't see why it's necessary to be rude to what was probably a
> first-time poster.
Necessary? How about "fun"?
> If he's a troll or you consider the question below
> you, then ignore him. If you think it's a legitimate question and you
> have time to answer, then answer it and move on with your life.
> Furthermore, if you think he's a troll, why waste your time fighting
> with him?
What part of "bloodsport" do you not understand?
> Come on, we're supposed to be advocates for the best programming
> language EVER. Let's live up to the high standards of our language :)
I am just trying to counterbalance the newby-huuging, feel-good, shiny
happy faces crowd ignominiously begging and pleading losers to join our
club. How attractive. Not. One of my competitors sells a straight-up
first-person shooter game with embedded Algebra lessons. Their tag line?
"Learn Algebra or die trying." Attitude, that's the thing. Tennis once
toed your line: a gentleman's sport, plain white outfits, and hushed
crowds applauding carefully and never cheering unforced errors. Yawn.
Then came Connors and Nastase and McEnroe and mama don't let the
children see this (but look at those ratings).* And the tennis got
better. Maybe the c.l.l motto should be: "Get help or get eaten." A rep
like that might sharpen the questions a tad and draw in just the right
kind of newby.
kzo
* Y'all need to catch the finals (both men and women) of the Australian
Open. The men's is weird: both Federer and Gonzalez won their semi-final
matches with play that left the announcers gasping and finally
speechless. If both carry over their levels of play to the final it will
be a perfect storm of tennis. The women's side has the favorite
Sharapova up against unseeded Serena Williams coming out of near
retirement and a rank of 81 to try for a major title. Nice counterpoint
to the men's final: both women are playing like crap and getting by on
mental toughness and competitiveness. Cuuhhhhh-razy. k
--
Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and
I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.
-- Elwood P. Dowd
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.
-- Elwood's Mom
On Jan 24, 11:25 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > I don't see why it's necessary to be rude to what was probably a
> > first-time poster.
>
> Necessary? How about "fun"?
I'll leave you alone and just agree to disagree on this point. After
all, none of us are "in charge" here; there are just varying degrees
of seniority.
> > Come on, we're supposed to be advocates for the best programming
> > language EVER. Let's live up to the high standards of our language :)
>
> I am just trying to counterbalance the newby-huuging, feel-good, shiny
> happy faces crowd ignominiously begging and pleading losers to join our
> club. ... A rep like that might sharpen the questions a tad and draw in just
> the right kind of newby.
That's a good point. I think it's important to counterbalance that
spirit, though, with the necessity of attracting new programmers. In
a not very large number of years we're going to have 80-core desktops,
and the programming languages will have to evolve to handle parallel
programming in a way that good coders who don't necessarily know how
to write parallel code can understand. If CL can evolve fast enough,
we're going to be getting a huge influx of coders fleeing from C and
similar low-level languages. Can we offer them language support for
writing correct, efficient parallel code? Can we get them hooked on
the code == data paradigm and show them how amazingly efficient it
makes everyday coding work?
I'm just saying, there's going to be a huge language metamorphosis
soon and I want CL to be a part of it. If we don't attract enough
decent coders to do the work of adapting CL, CL will be marginalized
-- because guess what, how many of us regular posters have the luxury
of working full-time on hacking the back ends of CL systems?
Just some thoughts --
mfh
············@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 11:25 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>
>>············@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see why it's necessary to be rude to what was probably a
>>>first-time poster.
>>
>>Necessary? How about "fun"?
>
>
> I'll leave you alone and just agree to disagree on this point. After
> all, none of us are "in charge" here; there are just varying degrees
> of seniority.
>
>
>>>Come on, we're supposed to be advocates for the best programming
>>>language EVER. Let's live up to the high standards of our language :)
>>
>>I am just trying to counterbalance the newby-huuging, feel-good, shiny
>>happy faces crowd ignominiously begging and pleading losers to join our
>>club. ... A rep like that might sharpen the questions a tad and draw in just
>>the right kind of newby.
>
>
> That's a good point. I think it's important to counterbalance that
> spirit, though, with the necessity of attracting new programmers.
I am afraid I cannot let you have that particular bit of high ground,
having done more to attract newbies to Lisp and help them when they get
here than most folks. Your argument rests on the premise that this
latest chewtoy of mine deserves a better fate. His appetite for Usenet
back-and-forth suggests otherwise, and if you check the record you will
see I did not weigh in until he manifested that--I saw his first silly
post and withheld judgment. Since then we have had hundreds of words of
scenery-chewing as he plays the victim, but that alone proves the
contrary. Now he has sunk to "psychiatrist" cliches. Walks like a duck,
talks like a duck... where's the hard part here? One has to examine this
from a metalevel -- does a Usenet veteran (which obviously he is), when
taken to task for a silly post in a newsgroup, start arguing with the
group regulars about his treatment? Q-frickin-ED. As for...
> In
> a not very large number of years we're going to have 80-core desktops,
> and the programming languages will have to evolve to handle parallel
> programming in a way that good coders who don't necessarily know how
> to write parallel code can understand. If CL can evolve fast enough,
> we're going to be getting a huge influx of coders fleeing from C and
> similar low-level languages. Can we offer them language support for
> writing correct, efficient parallel code? Can we get them hooked on
> the code == data paradigm and show them how amazingly efficient it
> makes everyday coding work?
>
> I'm just saying, there's going to be a huge language metamorphosis
> soon and I want CL to be a part of it. If we don't attract enough
> decent coders to do the work of adapting CL, CL will be marginalized
Please. Whenever someone wants to cluck their tongue at a Usenet savage
such as myself they always end with that whacky "c.l.l. meanie XXX is
why Lisp is unpopular" argument. It is wrong too many ways to count,
leaving aside the fact that I am never wrong about my targets who are
exactly the people we do /not/ want using Lisp. I should get a prize,
not censure. Maybe if I turned the carcasses in instead of eating them?
btw, "CL will be marginalized"? O ye of little faith. In fact, CL cannot
be denied.
kt
--
Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and
I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.
-- Elwood P. Dowd
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.
-- Elwood's Mom
Ken Tilton wrote:
<snip foaming-at-the-mouth drivel>
Hey Kenny "Faggot" Tilton dude, what questions may us newbies ask that
will not bring your "righteous" anger upon us?
BTW, do consider sticking your LISP-books up your arse for your daily
wanking, it really do add to the pleasure!
Baalbek
baalbek wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> <snip foaming-at-the-mouth drivel>
>
> Hey Kenny "Faggot" Tilton dude, what questions may us newbies ask that
> will not bring your "righteous" anger upon us?
>
> BTW, do consider sticking your LISP-books up your arse for your daily
> wanking, it really do add to the pleasure!
>
> Baalbek
This is fascinating. Just a few nights ago I was in a sports bar and we
got to talking about how pro athletes managed to deal with abuse coming
from the stands, mostly at away games for the reason obvious. Sometimes
I hear specifics and it is astonishingly raw, makes Usenet look like an
afternoon tea. All we could come up with is that anyone at that level
lives with it more than we can imagine (especially those of us who
rarely go to games), such that some drunk bellowing the most vile and
personal abuse becomes more incentive and reward, the abuse not even
being taken at face value, as an insult, but rather a tribute.
So.... thanks!
kzo
--
Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and
I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.
-- Elwood P. Dowd
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.
-- Elwood's Mom
Ken Tilton wrote:
> This is fascinating. Just a few nights ago I was in a sports bar and we
> got to talking about how pro athletes managed to deal with abuse coming
> from the stands, mostly at away games for the reason obvious. Sometimes
> I hear specifics and it is astonishingly raw, makes Usenet look like an
> afternoon tea. All we could come up with is that anyone at that level
> lives with it more than we can imagine (especially those of us who
> rarely go to games), such that some drunk bellowing the most vile and
> personal abuse becomes more incentive and reward, the abuse not even
> being taken at face value, as an insult, but rather a tribute.
I'm reminded of something in, hmm, I think it might have been
"semi-tough" or "north dallas forty" or one of those football
novels, that completely didn't appear in the movie but made a
nice framing device for the book.
Near the beginning of the book, one of the characters was
seriously injured while playing college football, by a Grapette
bottle flung from the stands. And then, throughout his pro
career, every so often, a Grapette bottle would, in the most
unlikely of circumstances and in some cases with disturbing
force and accuracy, get chucked at him. He/they never did
figure out where from, by whom, whether it was some particular
person/people out to get him or a coincidence or what; It
was just an occasional reminder of the omnipresence of the
floating rage and strangeness that surrounded life as a
football player, and sometimes a prompt to the players to
self-examination to see if they'd done anything that was
*worth* somebody getting murderously angry about.
I dunno.... I've been on the recieving end of your ire from
time to time, but I don't mind too much; On the contrary, I
like to think I learnt something from it. We're very different,
and we have different priorities, and I think I understand how
and why I started to frustrate you; I went on being interested
in lots of different lisp dialects, and how lisp dialects are
designed, and frustrated/annoyed by the peculiar relationship
of lisp code to the C/++ based OS and etc, rather than just
settling down and coding in CL, and occasionally I asked some
questions and made some complaints that, had I buckled down
and done my own homework, I should have known better than to
ask or make. You flung the proverbial grapette bottle and I
inspected my recent behavior and saw why. All told, a functional
and worthwhile, if somewhat unpleasant, exchange.
Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> This is fascinating. Just a few nights ago I was in a sports bar and
>> we got to talking about how pro athletes managed to deal with abuse
>> coming from the stands, mostly at away games for the reason obvious.
>> Sometimes I hear specifics and it is astonishingly raw, makes Usenet
>> look like an afternoon tea. All we could come up with is that anyone
>> at that level lives with it more than we can imagine (especially those
>> of us who rarely go to games), such that some drunk bellowing the most
>> vile and personal abuse becomes more incentive and reward, the abuse
>> not even being taken at face value, as an insult, but rather a tribute.
>
>
> I'm reminded of something in, hmm, I think it might have been
> "semi-tough" or "north dallas forty" or one of those football
> novels, that completely didn't appear in the movie but made a
> nice framing device for the book.
>
> Near the beginning of the book, one of the characters was
> seriously injured while playing college football, by a Grapette
> bottle flung from the stands. And then, throughout his pro
> career, every so often, a Grapette bottle would, in the most
> unlikely of circumstances and in some cases with disturbing
> force and accuracy, get chucked at him. He/they never did
> figure out where from, by whom, whether it was some particular
> person/people out to get him or a coincidence or what; It
> was just an occasional reminder of the omnipresence of the
> floating rage and strangeness that surrounded life as a
> football player, and sometimes a prompt to the players to
> self-examination to see if they'd done anything that was
> *worth* somebody getting murderously angry about.
Grapette this: no, Jodie Foster is /not/ responsible for John Hinckley
shooting three people including the President. The correct question was
"Who is John Hinckley?".
Really, kiddies, it is OK to blame the perpetrator. Not that I do in
this case. The OP is clearly an unhappy puppy deserving nothing other
than compassion for the demons that drive them to randomly attack Usenet
blowhards like me.
kzo
--
Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and
I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.
-- Elwood P. Dowd
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.
-- Elwood's Mom
On 27 Jan 2007 13:30:28 -0800, ·············@gmail.com"
<············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>In a not very large number of years we're going to have 80-core desktops,
>and the programming languages will have to evolve to handle parallel
>programming in a way that good coders who don't necessarily know how
>to write parallel code can understand. If CL can evolve fast enough,
>we're going to be getting a huge influx of coders fleeing from C and
>similar low-level languages. Can we offer them language support for
>writing correct, efficient parallel code? Can we get them hooked on
>the code == data paradigm and show them how amazingly efficient it
>makes everyday coding work?
Well ... I don't want to start a war here but it has to be said that
CL's explicit sequencing and guaranteed order of evaluation for
function arguments is a detriment to extracting expression level
parallelism. Source level solutions such as threads, futures, PCALL
and so on are not enough to take advantage of massively parallel
hardware.
I'm not a big fan of any of the current crop of FP languages, but I do
think immutable data will be a necessity and a language based on
call-by-need (though not necessarily lazy or backward chaining) holds
the most promise.
I used to think declaritive dataflow models would be the answer to
programming massively parallel hardware, but when the hardware failed
to materialize, the declaritive languages went in a different
direction. Now that we will shortly have the hardware, maybe dataflow
can make a comeback.
>I'm just saying, there's going to be a huge language metamorphosis
>soon and I want CL to be a part of it. If we don't attract enough
>decent coders to do the work of adapting CL, CL will be marginalized
>-- because guess what, how many of us regular posters have the luxury
>of working full-time on hacking the back ends of CL systems?
Some variation of Lisp has potential, but not CL - I think CL has
spec'd itself out of the running.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Jan 27, 10:42 pm, George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> wrote:
> Well ... I don't want to start a war here but it has to be said that
> CL's explicit sequencing and guaranteed order of evaluation for
> function arguments is a detriment to extracting expression level
> parallelism. Source level solutions such as threads, futures, PCALL
> and so on are not enough to take advantage of massively parallel
> hardware.
No flame wars here, but I am interested in a good discussion :)
I don't have enough experience on the kinds of applications where that
kind of parallelism is useful -- my parallel apps tend to be very
regular. But I'm wondering whether automatic extraction of
parallelism will be that useful in the long run, as communication will
become increasingly the dominant cost.
In scientific computing we've been using "source level solutions" for
quite some time now -- if you count source-to-source translators as
"source level solutions" ;P That solution scales to thousands of
processors. Scaling is partially a system question but also partially
an algorithm question; programmers have to be trained to think "in
parallel."
Potential parallelism in a function call is only worth extracting if
the data are sufficiently large and already distributed across the
processors. Otherwise the communication costs of scattering and
gathering the data won't justify parallelization.
mfh
On 27 Jan, 02:37, ·············@gmail.com" <············@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I don't see why it's necessary to be rude to what was probably a
> first-time poster. If he's a troll or you consider the question below
> you, then ignore him. If you think it's a legitimate question and you
> have time to answer, then answer it and move on with your life.
> Furthermore, if you think he's a troll, why waste your time fighting
> with him?
>
> Come on, we're supposed to be advocates for the best programming
> language EVER. Let's live up to the high standards of our language :)
>
> mfh
Thanks a lot Mr. Mark for your support.
I really apologize if my question caused a *much predicted* flame war.
But still I learned a lot from this thread.
"Programming is an art, no matter what programming language you use.
Classification is for the weak and narrow minded people".
And btw Mr. Ken Tilton instead of posting all the sarcastic stuff you
could have shown all your intelligence by posting something helpful or
contributing. Never in my posts have I asked whether LISP is better
than Language X so I ain't a troll. Asking questions is not
foolishness, but being sarcastic without a reason sure is......
Btw any starting place for learning LISP i.e. the good content which
doesn't show up on the first page of google when we type "LISP
tutorials". I have downloaded CLISP. Is it good or is there a better
one ?
Thanks to all.
Hi,
> Btw any starting place for learning LISP i.e. the good content which
> doesn't show up on the first page of google when we type "LISP
> tutorials". I have downloaded CLISP. Is it good or is there a better
> one ?
Most will probably recommend Practical Common Lisp by Peter Seibel,
which is available both online and in printed form: http://
www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
Oh, and it's »Lisp« (or »Common Lisp«, to be a bit clearer), not
»LISP«, but someone has probably mentioned that before. I'm just too
lazy to read the thread again :)
Mata ne,
Matthias
On 28 Jan, 01:17, "Matthias Benkard" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most will probably recommend Practical Common Lisp by Peter Seibel,
> which is available both online and in printed form: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
>
> Oh, and it's »Lisp« (or »Common Lisp«, to be a bit clearer), not
> »LISP«, but someone has probably mentioned that before. I'm just too
> lazy to read the thread again :)
Thank you for recommendation -- have already downloaded CLISP and now
reading some basic tutorials.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Oh, I had very good reason. I saw the alacrity with which you engaged
> the first person to call you out on your silly post. You have continued
> with hundreds and hundreds of words of whining about your treatment
> here, another clear sign that you are totally comfortable with this
> game.
You ought to see a good psychiatrist.
Hi again,
> Thank you for recommendation -- have already downloaded CLISP and now
> reading some basic tutorials.
CLISP is quite all right if you're using Windows. Do keep in mind,
though, that CLISP is by far not the most popular Lisp implementation,
and don't make the mistake of equating Common Lisp with CLISP, as a
lot of newbies seem to do. It's not even the most popular _free_ Lisp
implementation, as far as I can tell (only the most popular one with
good Windows support).
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/lispbox/ might be of interest to you,
too. Lispbox is an easy-to-install package including a bunch of
libraries (notably ASDF, which is practically a must-have) and an
Emacs-based IDE. Or at least it says so on the website.
Mata ne,
Matthias
P.S. Please note that I'm not a Lisp expert in any sense of the word.
Not having written much Lisp code yet, I still consider myself a
newbie. All usual disclaimers apply :)
················@gmail.com wrote:
> On 28 Jan, 01:17, "Matthias Benkard" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Most will probably recommend Practical Common Lisp by Peter Seibel,
>>which is available both online and in printed form: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
>>
>>Oh, and it's �Lisp� (or �Common Lisp�, to be a bit clearer), not
>>�LISP�, but someone has probably mentioned that before. I'm just too
>>lazy to read the thread again :)
>
>
> Thank you for recommendation -- have already downloaded CLISP and now
> reading some basic tutorials.
>
>
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Oh, I had very good reason. I saw the alacrity with which you engaged
>>the first person to call you out on your silly post. You have continued
>>with hundreds and hundreds of words of whining about your treatment
>>here, another clear sign that you are totally comfortable with this
>>game.
>
>
> You ought to see a good psychiatrist.
>
>
Talk about a non-refuting refutation. Did you want to add something
about the drugs I must be on or have gone off?
Looking forward to your next performance....
kenny
On Jan 27, 9:33 pm, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> On 28 Jan, 01:17, "Matthias Benkard" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Most will probably recommend Practical Common Lisp by Peter Seibel,
> > which is available both online and in printed form:http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
>
> > Oh, and it's »Lisp« (or »Common Lisp«, to be a bit clearer), not
> > »LISP«, but someone has probably mentioned that before. I'm just too
> > lazy to read the thread again :)Thank you for recommendation -- have already downloaded CLISP and now
> reading some basic tutorials.
There are many other good guides on the net too. Searching the web
brings up a few. The Emacs lisp introduction is quite good, even
though it's not about Common lisp. The "Structure and Interpretation
of Computer programs", which is about scheme not common lisp is quite
a good book, much of what it says applies to CL. Both are available
online.
The strange things about the reaction to your comments is to compare
them to the reaction to mine. My reply above to Andrew Reilly about
what object-orientation is could have been construed as being a tactic
to start a flamewar too, but because it was posted mid-thread it was
not.
On 29 Jan, 22:13, ·······@yahoo.com (robert maas, see http://
tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> That's an ass-backwards way of asking the question,
English is not my first language, so there are some problems while
framing questions in areas which I am not well versed or well informed
in.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> There are many other good guides on the net too. Searching the web
> brings up a few. The Emacs lisp introduction is quite good, even
> though it's not about Common lisp. The "Structure and Interpretation
> of Computer programs", which is about scheme not common lisp is quite
> a good book, much of what it says applies to CL. Both are available
> online.
Thanks for suggestion. Downloaded CLISP ( since Allegro Lisp is a
whopping 200 MB download !!), borrowed the book Practical Lisp from my
friend and now started a bit of Lisp. My first program ;)
( defvar *db* nil )
( defun make_cd( title artist rating ripped )
( list :title title :artist artist :rating rating :ripped ripped ) )
( defun add_cd( cd )
( push cd *db* ) )
( defun dump_db( )
( format t "~{~{~a~10t : ~a~%~}~%~%~}" *db* ) )
( add_cd( make_cd "title_one" "artist_one" 8 t ) )
( add_cd( make_cd "title_two" "artist_two" 9 nil ) )
( add_cd( make_cd "title_three" "artist_three" 7 t ) )
( dump_db )
Feels really good :-) Hope I have got the indentation right.
> The strange things about the reaction to your comments is to compare
> them to the reaction to mine. My reply above to Andrew Reilly about
> what object-orientation is could have been construed as being a tactic
> to start a flamewar too, but because it was posted mid-thread it was
> not.
There were some misunderstandings, but its alright, considering that I
know I was not wrong.
Everyone's contribution appreciated.
On Jan 30, 4:54 pm, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 22:13, ·······@yahoo.com (robert maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>Thanks for suggestion. Downloaded CLISP ( since Allegro Lisp is a
> whopping 200 MB download !!), borrowed the book Practical Lisp from my
> friend and now started a bit of Lisp. My first program ;)
>
> ( defvar *db* nil )
>
> ( defun make_cd( title artist rating ripped )
> ( list :title title :artist artist :rating rating :ripped ripped ) )
>
> ( defun add_cd( cd )
> ( push cd *db* ) )
>
> ( defun dump_db( )
> ( format t "~{~{~a~10t : ~a~%~}~%~%~}" *db* ) )
>
> ( add_cd( make_cd "title_one" "artist_one" 8 t ) )
> ( add_cd( make_cd "title_two" "artist_two" 9 nil ) )
> ( add_cd( make_cd "title_three" "artist_three" 7 t ) )
>
> ( dump_db )
>
> Feels really good :-) Hope I have got the indentation right.
When formatting Common Lisp you can do what you want. But it often
makes sense to do what others do.
Underscore can be used in variable names, as it is in C, you can also
use "-", dash. It is conventional to use dashes because variables &
functions defined by the language itself use dashes, as do 3rd party
libraries. So, a future maintainer must remember when using a
function call or variable whether to use dashes or underscores. Also
dash only requires one keystroke to type on most keyboards, wheras
underscores needs two.
In Lisp "(" and ")" are separators. They cannot form part of any
symbol name. So it's perfectly safe to write code like:-
(add_cd(make_cd "title_three" "artist_three" 7 t))
Without putting spaces at the beginning and end.
It's not always apparent what other things means though, many
characters that are separators in other languages (like %$+-/%) aren't
in lisp. For example, the three characters "12#" are a valid symbol
and as such could be used as a variable name. (Doing this wouldn't be
recommended). For this reason it's conventional to put spaces between
every element of a list. So the conventional format of the above line
would be:-
(add-cd (make-cd "title_three" "artist_three" 7 t))
················@gmail.com writes:
[snip]
> ( defvar *db* nil )
>
> ( defun make_cd( title artist rating ripped )
> ( list :title title :artist artist :rating rating :ripped ripped ) )
>
> ( defun add_cd( cd )
> ( push cd *db* ) )
>
> ( defun dump_db( )
> ( format t "~{~{~a~10t : ~a~%~}~%~%~}" *db* ) )
>
> ( add_cd( make_cd "title_one" "artist_one" 8 t ) )
> ( add_cd( make_cd "title_two" "artist_two" 9 nil ) )
> ( add_cd( make_cd "title_three" "artist_three" 7 t ) )
>
> ( dump_db )
>
> Feels really good :-) Hope I have got the indentation right.
Nope, the formatting is terrible. You can't go wrong if you simply
follow the style of the examples in the book. Specifically:
- do not put a space after an opening paren
- do not put a space before a closing paren
- use dashes, not hyphens, in symbols
- don't write this: ( foo( bar ) )
- write this instead: (foo (bar))
Zach
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:17:06 -0800, Matthias Benkard wrote:
>
> Oh, and it's »Lisp« (or »Common Lisp«, to be a bit clearer), not
> »LISP«, but someone has probably mentioned that before. I'm just too
> lazy to read the thread again :)
Keep in mind that Lisp can also refer to languages in the Lisp family,
which includes Emacs Lisp, AutoLisp (used in AutoCAD), Scheme, and other
dialects. Sometimes it even includes Dylan if the speaker is really,
really broad in his definition of what 'Lisp' means.
Now, the question "What is Lisp?" is sure to start a flamewar around here. ;)
>
> Mata ne,
> Matthias
--
My address happens to be com (dot) gmail (at) usenet (plus) chbarts,
wardsback and translated.
It's in my header if you need a spoiler.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
················@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On 27 Jan, 02:37, ·············@gmail.com" <············@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I don't see why it's necessary to be rude to what was probably a
>>first-time poster. If he's a troll or you consider the question below
>>you, then ignore him. If you think it's a legitimate question and you
>>have time to answer, then answer it and move on with your life.
>>Furthermore, if you think he's a troll, why waste your time fighting
>>with him?
>>
>>Come on, we're supposed to be advocates for the best programming
>>language EVER. Let's live up to the high standards of our language :)
>>
>>mfh
>
> Thanks a lot Mr. Mark for your support.
>
> I really apologize if my question caused a *much predicted* flame war.
> But still I learned a lot from this thread.
>
> "Programming is an art, no matter what programming language you use.
> Classification is for the weak and narrow minded people".
>
> And btw Mr. Ken Tilton instead of posting all the sarcastic stuff you
> could have shown all your intelligence by posting something helpful or
> contributing. Never in my posts have I asked whether LISP is better
> than Language X so I ain't a troll.
I also use the word troll with admitted imprecision for earnest nutjobs.
We just do not have a name for that, yet. Iliaic is being considered.
> Asking questions is not
> foolishness, but being sarcastic without a reason sure is......
Oh, I had very good reason. I saw the alacrity with which you engaged
the first person to call you out on your silly post. You have continued
with hundreds and hundreds of words of whining about your treatment
here, another clear sign that you are totally comfortable with this
game. So you can lose the pose of aggrieved innocence and prove me wrong
by SingTFU and writing some Lisp.
kzo
--
Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and
I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.
-- Elwood P. Dowd
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.
-- Elwood's Mom
(message (Hello 'Rob)
(you :wrote :on '(26 Jan 2007 06:03:30 -0800))
(
??>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:18 -0800, Rob Thorpe wrote:
??>>> * Or you can start with an OO language, which must in general be
??>>> imperative too. You can then add more imperative features.In a
??>>> sense, that's a given: OO is all about data structures, and the
??>> modification of state. "Show me your data structures and I won't
??>> usually need your code; it'll be obvious."
RT> That's an interesting way of putting it. I guess it comes down to Tim
RT> Rentsch's words above, but I was taught exactly the reverse.
the best explanation of OO i've seen so far is by Guy L. Steele Jr:
Objects have not failed
http://www.dreamsongs.org/ObjectsHaveNotFailedNarr.html
--
That was in 1997, and Raymond was discussing a project coded in C, a
procedural language. But for an object-oriented language, I think this
aphorism should be reversed, with a twist:
Show me your interfaces, the contracts for your methods, and I won't usually
need your field declarations and class hierarchy; they'll be irrelevant.
I think, however, that practitioners of both procedural and object-oriented
languages can agree on Raymond's related point:
Smart data structures and dumb code works a lot better than the other way
around.
This is especially true for object-oriented languages, where data structures
can be smart by virtue of the fact that they can encapsulate the relevant
snippets of "dumb code." Big classes with little methods-that's the way to
go!
--
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
<················@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ·····························@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> I asked the question of categorization since before designing a
> language and its compiler, the designer / creator must be making some
> decisions on how he wants his language to be....I asked the question
> since i wanted to understand their reasoning when they described their
> languages.
> ...
Getsanjay,
so you plan to design a new language. In this case I think, before designing a new language one should have good knowledge of Lisp. At least you have a better overview of what a language can do for you. On the other hand, I'd consider Lisp a language design tool because (Common) Lisp allows a style I personally appreciate much more than OO: `language oriented design'.
Create new languages on the fly! (no joke)
Andreas
On Jan 24, 7:31 pm, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> * Object Oriented - C++, Java, C#
Hi,
You should note that the term "object oriented" serves also as a
marketing term, in addition to whatever technical meaning it has. So
for example, Alan Kay claims, "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and
I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind."
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521>
After all, a programming language is a product, a program which
distinguishes itself on the basis of features. This is not to say the
C++ people are cynical about it. Just that we don't expect them to
issue press releases about how C++ is perhaps not seriously OOP.
> How are these classifications made ? Are they based on the way a
> language can be used ? If LISP is capable of supporting different
> programming styles why is it more popularly known as Functional
> Programming language ?
Lisp has certain unusual features that caused people to call it
"functional". For example, you could pass a function around as a value.
Apparently that was once considered pretty unique. Now, it is not so
unique, since there are languages such as Haskell which go further in
this direction.
Lisp is not a pure functional language. You can do looping with
functions and recursion, but you can also use the more typical looping
features which change state. In fact, there is some bias towards using
these looping features rather than recursion.
Tayssir
On Jan 24, 10:31 am, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> Matthias Benkard wrote:
> > Hi there,
>
> > Please don't take all of these posts too seriously. We Lispers are
> > easily annoyed by people who ask questions that are likely to cause
> > flamewars, even if they were not intended that way. That's because
> > there are lots of ignorant fools out there who don't want to learn
> > anything new.
>
> No..nothing serious, I was just shocked to see the tone adopted for
> someone who has asked a simple question without the remote idea or even
> a hint of starting a language war. Glad to know that even people like
> you exist on google groups. :-)
>
> > Anyway, I think you phrased your question in an ambiguous way. What is
> > it you're asking?
>
> Yes I guess so, maybe because English is not my first language.
I think your English is very good. I understood your question easily.
Congratulations on knowing a second language so well. I wish I did.
Peter
On Jan 24, 9:04 am, ················@gmail.com wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > Idiot, so a language isn't ``really'' object oriented if it doesn't
> > exclude everything else?
>
> > Maybe you aren't ``really'' a programmer because you also support the
> > trolling paradigm in addition to being a programmer.
> Sir, it would be so unfair to flame / make fun / insult me without
> knowing the context in which I am asking the question. In case you
> don't know, English is not my first language so there might have been
> some problem in my question framing.
So what? English is also not my first language either. Your English
appears to be perfectly fine; better than that of the average
highschool graduate in the United States, in fact.
No excuses possible there.
> Also I am not one of those people who like to start language fight,
Good; then have slightly better sense than asking in a comp.lang
newsgroups asking about if something is ``really'' object oriented,
etc.
> its just that one of my friend stated
> that LISP is object oriented so I wanted to know how exactly the
> classification of language takes place.
Classification is a tool for the weak-minded who have to attach some
authoritative label to something (or, better yet, have someone do it
for them) before they can accept it.
You see this in all spheres of human activity.
In the arts, there are people who need to classify a work as being this
or that instead of just taking it by itself.
``I'd like to enjoy that tune, but I'm not sure it's really jazz ...''
> > One of those styles is also imperative programming, so what you're
> > saying is that Lisp is a functional language that supports looping and
> > assignment to memory locations.
> I was not stating anything, I was asking a question, and asking as in
> trying to know about something.
The term ``functional language'' is very loaded. If a language is said
to be functional, this is in fact an exclusive concept, because it
means that imperative features are rejected from the language to make
it that way. A language cannot be said to be functional if it has
things like assignable variables, or aggregate objects with modifiable
slots.
Common Lisp isn't a functional language. It has fairly good support for
functional programming, if we define it as: obtaining a result by the
chained application of constructor functions to objects which are
(treated as) immutable.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:04:24 -0800, getsanjay.sharma wrote:
> I guess I got confused between paradigms and language types, is it ?
> My friend also stated "LISP the first language to be considered by ANSI
> as a full blown object oriented language". Is he correct in saying this
> ?
Don't know about "full blown", but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simula
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/
On 2007-01-24 12:35:31 -0500, Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> said:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:04:24 -0800, getsanjay.sharma wrote:
>
>> I guess I got confused between paradigms and language types, is it ?
>> My friend also stated "LISP the first language to be considered by ANSI
>> as a full blown object oriented language". Is he correct in saying this
>> ?
>
> Don't know about "full blown", but:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simula
I believe that "ANSI" rather than "full blown" would be the determining
qualifier. Common Lisp was the first ANSI standardized OO language.
················@gmail.com wrote:
> Sir, it would be so unfair to flame / make fun / insult me without
> knowing the context in which I am asking the question. In case you
> don't know, English is not my first language so there might have been
> some problem in my question framing. Also I am not one of those people
> who like to start language fight, its just that one of my friend stated
> that LISP is object oriented so I wanted to know how exactly the
> classification of language takes place.
Object oriented programming is a technique of organizing code,
not a property of a programming language. Some modern
languages are designed in an effort to prevent you from
using any other technique, but Common Lisp is not one of
these. So yes, you can also use Functional programming
(a technique) or imperative programming (another technique).
Common Lisp supports all of these very well.
You may wish to ask a more specific question, such as what
specific support there is for programming in Object-Oriented
style. The short answers, by the way, are "CLOS", "generic
functions", "type subclassing" and "The Meta Object
Protocol." Find out more about what these things mean
and how they work. When you understand them, you will
likely conclude that no other language has nearly as
*much* support for object-oriented programming as Common
Lisp.
Bear
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
> Object oriented programming is a technique of organizing code,
> not a property of a programming language.
I disagree with this. I _used_ to think that, but realized that
the term "object oriented" had been hijacked by the C++ crowd to
basically mean "classes + polymorphism".
It's not until quite a bit later that it dawned on me that Lisp
is object oriented at a more fundamental level -- at the level where
every datum that runs around in your program IS an object. In fact
I read the EQ operator as meaning "these two variables point to the
SAME object".
The whole "classes + polymorphism" view now seems to me to be a
pragmatic way to recoup some of this aspect in languages in which
datums are not fundamentally objects.
Furthemore, philosophically, I don't think OO is just about
"organizing code". I think it's about imagining your computation
as an interaction of autonomous agents (objects) which "talk" to
each other. I'm pretty sure that's what the smalltalkers mean by
it, and, hey, they invented the term... :-)
--ap
On Feb 24, 5:29 pm, Alain Picard <············@memetrics.com> wrote:
> Furthemore, philosophically, I don't think OO is just about
> "organizing code". I think it's about imagining your computation
> as an interaction of autonomous agents (objects) which "talk" to
> each other. I'm pretty sure that's what the smalltalkers mean by
> it, and, hey, they invented the term... :-)
>
> --ap
Alan Kay apparently thinks of OO in terms of messaging
"OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and
hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It
can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other
systems in which this is possible, but I'm not aware of them."
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht10Ht/doc_kay_oop_en
Alain Picard wrote:
> Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
>
>
>>Object oriented programming is a technique of organizing code,
>>not a property of a programming language.
>
> I disagree with this. I _used_ to think that, but realized that
> the term "object oriented" had been hijacked by the C++ crowd to
> basically mean "classes + polymorphism".
P.Graham wrote a nice paper on what "Object-Oriented" means
and how flexible is its definition. There are many aspects
that people use the word as shorthand for, and you frequently
get the A partisan saying "A is OO, but B is not" at the same
time the B partisan is saying, "B is OO, but A is not." The
crux of the matter is that people have slightly-to-drastically
different ideas of what OO means.
We have reached such a case. I experience it as a method of
organizing code, which can be done in any language. Others
require guarantees that you *can't* do things I simply *don't*
do when I'm coding in OO style, and think of it as an attribute
of a runtime or language.
Bear
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
> Alain Picard wrote:
> > Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
> >
> >>Object oriented programming is a technique of organizing code,
> >> not a property of a programming language.
> > I disagree with this. I _used_ to think that, but realized that
> > the term "object oriented" had been hijacked by the C++ crowd to
> > basically mean "classes + polymorphism".
>
> P.Graham wrote a nice paper on what "Object-Oriented" means
> and how flexible is its definition.
Actually, Jonathan Rees wrote it, and it is reproduced on Paul
Graham's website here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html
Zach
On 1¿ù25ÀÏ, ¿ÀÀü2½Ã49ºÐ, "bob_bane" <········@gst.com> wrote:
> The quickest answer to that is "it depends on what you mean by
> object-oriented". See:
>
> http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html
Another quote is here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html
bob_bane <········@gst.com> wrote:
> The quickest answer to that is "it depends on what you mean by
> object-oriented".
And what he means by "LISP".
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:08:08 -0800, getsanjay.sharma wrote:
> Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional programming
> language which supports multi programming paradigms / various
> programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
The answer here must be .. yes -- LISP is really not object oriented nor
is it just a functional programming language which supports multi
programming paradigms / various programming styles and one of them is not
Object Oriented.
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/
(message (Hello ·················@gmail.com)
(you :wrote :on '(24 Jan 2007 08:08:08 -0800))
(
gs> Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional programming
gs> language which supports multi programming paradigms / various
gs> programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
NO!!!!111
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
Hahaha. Brilliant.
On Jan 24, 4:24 pm, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> (message (Hello ·················@gmail.com)
> (you :wrote :on '(24 Jan 2007 08:08:08 -0800))
> (
>
> gs> Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional programming
> gs> language which supports multi programming paradigms / various
> gs> programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
>
> NO!!!!111
>
> )
> (With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
> "People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
················@gmail.com wrote:
> Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional programming
> language which supports multi programming paradigms / various
> programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
Lisp doesn't force OOP upon you.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet
On Jan 24, 3:47 pm, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't force OOP upon you.
I once heard Jon L White say at a presentation that Lisp/CLOS was
object-oriented, as opposed to Smalltalk, which was object-obsessed.
On 9729 day of my life getsanjay sharma wrote:
> Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional programming
> language which supports multi programming paradigms / various
> programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
The only OO languages are Smalltalk and Common Lisp. Other (C++, Java
etc.) are cheap imitations.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
| recursion, n:
| See recursion
"Ivan Boldyrev" <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ···················@ibhome.cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru...
> ...
> The only OO languages are Smalltalk and Common Lisp. Other (C++, Java
> etc.) are cheap imitations.
> ...
Great :))
The point I wonder about those people who talk about OO meaning C++ and/or Java. I can't understand how so called `OO professionals' can totally ignore the most flexible OO at all: Common Lisp Object System. How can Gamma et al. write about `Design Pattern' without a serious reference to CLOS?
Damned thing is:
This book is not about OO (http://norvig.com/design-patterns/), it is about problems in C++ (and where applicable in Java)!
Andreas
On 2007-01-26, Andreas Thiele <······@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> "Ivan Boldyrev" <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ···················@ibhome.cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru...
>> ...
>> The only OO languages are Smalltalk and Common Lisp. Other (C++, Java
>> etc.) are cheap imitations.
>> ...
>
> Great :))
>
> The point I wonder about those people who talk about OO meaning
> C++ and/or Java. I can't understand how so called `OO
> professionals' can totally ignore the most flexible OO at all:
> Common Lisp Object System. How can Gamma et al. write about
> `Design Pattern' without a serious reference to CLOS?
>
> Damned thing is:
>
> This book is not about OO (http://norvig.com/design-patterns/),
> it is about problems in C++ (and where applicable in Java)!
Specifically, it's about how to implement apposite subsets of
CLOS in C++ until your application no longer sucks. ;)
--
Neil Cerutti
Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your
life. --Brook Shields
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Andreas Thiele wrote:
> How can Gamma et al. write about `Design Pattern' without a serious reference to CLOS?
They refer to CLOS in that book (but only briefly somewhere in the
introduction).
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> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ····················@mid.individual.net...
> Andreas Thiele wrote:
>
>> How can Gamma et al. write about `Design Pattern' without a serious reference to CLOS?
>
> They refer to CLOS in that book (but only briefly somewhere in the
> introduction).
> ...
That's why I wanted a _serious_ reference ;)
Andreas
From: robert maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Subject: Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
Date:
Message-ID: <rem-2007jan29-003@yahoo.com>
> From: ················@gmail.com
> Is LISP really object oriented or is it just a functional
> programming language which supports multi programming paradigms /
> various programming styles and one of them is Object Oriented ?
That's an ass-backwards way of asking the question, like asking:
"Are you a complete leg, or just a body with many parts including
head torso legs arms etc.?"
The right way of asking is:
"Is LISP really a multi programming paradigm system, capable of not
just so-called object oriented programming but also various other
programming styles, or is it just a single-paradigm object oriented
programming system like java?"
analagous to:
"Are you a complete body, with many parts, including head torso legs
arms etc., or just a detached leg all by itself."
The point is that "just" should refer to the smaller part, the
subset, not the larger whole.
From: Patrick May
Subject: Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2fy9tpt4e.fsf@spe.com>
·······@yahoo.com (robert maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) writes:
[ . . . ]
> a single-paradigm object oriented programming system like java?"
You're being very generous to Java. It's more of a partial
paradigm language since it supports only a subset of OO techniques.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)