I'm considering starting a Lisp user's group in the Research Triangle
area of NC (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill). Being a noob, I haven't
acquired enough lispyness yet, so I thought I'd ask a few questions of
the old timers.
Are the Lisp & Scheme languages & culture such that including both would
make sense? My *guess* is that it would be a good idea because of their
similarity and the fact that it will be tough to get a sizable group
going even if both are included. On the other hand, I feel Ruby and
Python have a lot of similarities, and I'm pretty sure a Ruby/Python
group would never have happened - although I don't think it would be
boring :)
If I include both, how would Schemers feel about a domain name that only
had the word Lisp? I already bought TriLisp.org "tri" short for
"triangle". I also like the fact that it can be read "try lisp".
trilug.org is already taken for the Triangle Linux User's Group.
Should the language scope be even broader?
Have any of you started a Lisp user's group? If so, feel free to pass on
words of wisdom. Any naming conventions I should know about? For
example, the Ruby groups seem to like using "Ruby Brigade" in the name
".rb". I tried looking at a few Lisp user group web site domains and
didn't see much of a pattern.
Lastly, are any of you near the triangle area of NC?
Brian
Brian Adkins wrote:
> I'm considering starting a Lisp user's group in the Research Triangle
> area of NC (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill). Being a noob, I haven't
> acquired enough lispyness yet, so I thought I'd ask a few questions of
> the old timers.
>
> Are the Lisp & Scheme languages & culture such that including both would
> make sense?
Yes. See "LispNYC". The Scheme people give talks, the CL people drink,
pick up nearby singles, start brawls... but really it's mostly groupie
Lisp wannabes, and they are neutral.
>My *guess* is that it would be a good idea because of their
> similarity and the fact that it will be tough to get a sizable group
> going even if both are included. On the other hand, I feel Ruby and
> Python have a lot of similarities, and I'm pretty sure a Ruby/Python
> group would never have happened - although I don't think it would be
> boring :)
>
> If I include both, how would Schemers feel about a domain name that only
> had the word Lisp?
Fine. Scheme is a Lisp.
> I already bought TriLisp.org "tri" short for
> "triangle". I also like the fact that it can be read "try lisp".
> trilug.org is already taken for the Triangle Linux User's Group.
>
> Should the language scope be even broader?
Functional, lightweight. The key is, can they drink? Or is North
Carolina dry? If so, abandon all hope.
>
> Have any of you started a Lisp user's group? If so, feel free to pass on
> words of wisdom. Any naming conventions I should know about?
I believe there is a pretty tight correlation between creativity of name
and brevity of group existence.
hth,kzi
--
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> I'm considering starting a Lisp user's group in the Research Triangle
>> area of NC (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill). Being a noob, I haven't
>> acquired enough lispyness yet, so I thought I'd ask a few questions of
>> the old timers.
>>
>> Are the Lisp & Scheme languages & culture such that including both would
>> make sense?
>
> Yes. See "LispNYC". The Scheme people give talks, the CL people drink,
> pick up nearby singles, start brawls... but really it's mostly groupie
> Lisp wannabes, and they are neutral.
See, that's what I'm talkin' about - exactly the type of cultural
insight I needed ;)
I'm downloading the video of your algebra presentation - man, I hope
it's worth 200MB...
>> Have any of you started a Lisp user's group? If so, feel free to pass on
>> words of wisdom. Any naming conventions I should know about?
>
> I believe there is a pretty tight correlation between creativity of name
> and brevity of group existence.
Ok, trilisp.org it is then (I bought the trylisp pair also just in case
folks get confused). Brevity isn't a concern, but size is. I'm going to
try and keep the size down 'cause frankly more people will just muck it up.
I think I'll start with second Tuesdays of each year 'til things really
get hoppin'.
> hth,kzi
>
On Mar 9, 5:27 pm, Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> > Brian Adkins wrote:
> >> I'm considering starting a Lisp user's group in the Research Triangle
> >> area of NC (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill). Being a noob, I haven't
> >> acquired enough lispyness yet, so I thought I'd ask a few questions of
> >> the old timers.
>
> >> Are the Lisp & Scheme languages & culture such that including both would
> >> make sense?
>
> > Yes. See "LispNYC". The Scheme people give talks, the CL people drink,
> > pick up nearby singles, start brawls... but really it's mostly groupie
> > Lisp wannabes, and they are neutral.
>
> See, that's what I'm talkin' about - exactly the type of cultural
> insight I needed ;)
>
> I'm downloading the video of your algebra presentation - man, I hope
> it's worth 200MB...
>
> >> Have any of you started a Lisp user's group? If so, feel free to pass on
> >> words of wisdom. Any naming conventions I should know about?
>
> > I believe there is a pretty tight correlation between creativity of name
> > and brevity of group existence.
>
> Ok, trilisp.org it is then (I bought the trylisp pair also just in case
> folks get confused). Brevity isn't a concern, but size is. I'm going to
> try and keep the size down 'cause frankly more people will just muck it up.
>
the Reno Lisp User's Group is two people who meet once a month for
cheap vietnamese food... if you live somewhere where there are enough
people that know what Lisp is to muck it up consider yourself lucky...
most people in Reno think C is a functional language...
> I think I'll start with second Tuesdays of each year 'til things really
> get hoppin'.
wow, the second Tuesday of every year... sounds like balisp...
>
> > hth,kzi
········@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> Ok, trilisp.org it is then (I bought the trylisp pair also just in case
>> folks get confused). Brevity isn't a concern, but size is. I'm going to
>> try and keep the size down 'cause frankly more people will just muck it up.
>
> the Reno Lisp User's Group is two people who meet once a month for
> cheap vietnamese food... if you live somewhere where there are enough
> people that know what Lisp is to muck it up consider yourself lucky...
> most people in Reno think C is a functional language...
Yeah, just a little sarcasm acknowledging the difficulty I'll have in
getting much attendance initially.
It's nothing like other areas with high concentrations of software
folks, but we do have Duke, NC State & UNC Chapel Hill in the area plus
SAS, IBM, RedHat, Research Triangle Park, etc., so I wouldn't be
surprised if there were a number of folks interested in Lisp. The Ruby
group has grown nicely in the last year, and I expect some people
showing interest in Ruby, Python, etc. may see Lisp as an improvement.
The "halo effect" of Rails is pretty significant. I think a clear
message about how to be productive developing web apps with Lisp (even
if some frameworks/libraries have to be created, polished or repackaged)
could spark some interest. I admit I was impressed enough with the Rails
screencasts showing how to create X in Y minutes to check it out - and
it actually worked as advertised!
I see no reason why a framework that makes web development in Lisp as
easy and enjoyable as Rails can't be put together.
Even if Lisp were *only* comparable to Ruby vs. superior with respect to
productivity, the performance gain is a significant factor. Yes, I know
you can scale Ruby/Rails; however, a 10x or more performance gain
definitely got my attention.
I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
"If Lisp is so great why don't libraries, etc. exist for it like they do
for Ruby, Python, ...". Well, I remember what the Python web development
infrastructure looked like when I researched it years ago - it was
appeared bad enough to me that I switched to Ruby/Rails. Now (possibly
in part to Rails lighting a fire under the Python community), it appears
that Python has some really nice frameworks. So, I don't think it would
take all that much effort to cause the same thing to happen with Lisp
unless there is a serious deficiency in the language I'm overlooking and
all evidence so far indicates that's not the case.
I do feel that the lack of a clear open source Lisp leader (as far as I
can tell) could be a hindrance compared to Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP & now
Java, but I don't have enough knowledge/experience to judge that at this
time. It's probably as futile to suggest the various open source Lisp
teams pull together to produce one implementation as it would be to
suggest the various Linux distros pull together, but the difference is
that I can switch between Linux distros with relative freedom from pain.
Sorry for the rambling, too much coffee today :(
Brian
Brian Adkins wrote:
> I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
> "If Lisp is so great why don't libraries, etc. exist for it like they do
> for Ruby, Python, ...".
You are wondering why Shakespeare never conceived a hit game show like
Deal Or No Deal, and why Tiger Woods sucks at miniature golf. Why
Pavarotti never has and never will make it to the Billboard Pop 100, and
why Dale Earnhart got fired after one week driving a taxi in NYC (he
could only make left turns).
I am afraid to ask what else you wonder about.
> I do feel that the lack of a clear open source Lisp leader (as far as I
> can tell)
As far as I can tell we are still waiting for a Lisp noob who does not
immediately want to run out and write their own Lisp. Could make it a
tad tough for a leader to separate themself from the pack.
> could be a hindrance compared to Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP & now
> Java,
Sorry, those are what?
I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby wannabe.
> but I don't have enough knowledge/experience to judge that at this
> time.
Thank /god/ that did not keep you from lecturing us on our deficiencies!
> It's probably as futile to suggest the various open source Lisp
> teams pull together to produce one implementation as it would be to
> suggest the various Linux distros pull together, but the difference is
> that I can switch between Linux distros with relative freedom from pain.
I think that means relative to the incredible and pointless pain of
using Linux at all. Agreed.
I am sorry, we have a little thing called a standard, you may not know
what that is since you are worshipping all these languages that are so
uninteresting that only one person wants to implement one. We can have
as many implemenations as we like, and things like Cells-Gtk and Celtk
and Ltk and Cello will run on all of them.
>
> Sorry for the rambling, too much coffee today :(
No, I believe the explanation is "not enough Lisp". Could you please
STFU and go write Lisp for a year (or five) and then come back to
lecture us? We'll be here, like some of us have been for goin on fifty
years. I'm just a pup, going on twelve.
Finally: precisely what evil power has you spouting off on c.l.l instead
of creating this imagined super Lisp web environment that will make us
forget all the other Lisp web successes we have read about?
hth, kenny
--
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
>> "If Lisp is so great why don't libraries, etc. exist for it like they do
>> for Ruby, Python, ...".
>
> You are wondering why Shakespeare never conceived a hit game show like
> Deal Or No Deal, and why Tiger Woods sucks at miniature golf. Why
> Pavarotti never has and never will make it to the Billboard Pop 100, and
> why Dale Earnhart got fired after one week driving a taxi in NYC (he
> could only make left turns).
>
> I am afraid to ask what else you wonder about.
Why wonder when you can just make it up?
Actually, I've only just started looking into what libraries are
available, but since I've heard multiple experienced Lisp folks complain
about the lack of libraries and how people should be writing more, I
assumed there could be some truth to that. Hopefully as I dig in, I'll
come to the same realization as you.
At any rate, that was my perception as a noob. If I'm wrong, than I'm
sorry for furthering misinformation, and I'm looking forward to
discovering what's available.
>> I do feel that the lack of a clear open source Lisp leader (as far as I
>> can tell)
>
> As far as I can tell we are still waiting for a Lisp noob who does not
> immediately want to run out and write their own Lisp. Could make it a
> tad tough for a leader to separate themself from the pack.
Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
I expect the existing open source implementations weren't written by noobs.
>> could be a hindrance compared to Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP & now
>> Java,
>
> Sorry, those are what?
Let me reverse the question, what advantages do you see in multiple open
source implementations of Lisp? Are you asserting that if I start
developing on clisp, I'll have no trouble switching to sbcl or Lispworks
(or vice versa). Are there no "lock in" issues with the various
implementations?
> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
> wannabe.
Not as funny as your other posts, but it'll do to lighten the mood a
bit. I was going to argue with the "self-loathing", but that's mutually
exclusive with me responding, so you got me.
>> but I don't have enough knowledge/experience to judge that at this
>> time.
>
> Thank /god/ that did not keep you from lecturing us on our deficiencies!
Wasn't meant to be a lecture.
> I am sorry, we have a little thing called a standard, you may not know
> what that is since you are worshipping all these languages that are so
> uninteresting that only one person wants to implement one. We can have
> as many implemenations as we like, and things like Cells-Gtk and Celtk
> and Ltk and Cello will run on all of them.
That's good to know. It was my impression that I may run into some
issues moving code between implementations (mainly in areas not
addressed by the standard), which would require me to spend a lot of
time researching the appropriate implementation to deploy on to avoid
pain switching.
>> Sorry for the rambling, too much coffee today :(
>
> No, I believe the explanation is "not enough Lisp". Could you please
> STFU and go write Lisp for a year (or five) and then come back to
> lecture us? We'll be here, like some of us have been for goin on fifty
> years. I'm just a pup, going on twelve.
No argument about "not enough Lisp". I've been straightforward about
that on this newsgroup. I think there can be value in the perspective of
someone that's spent a couple weeks with the language. If you feel
differently, it doesn't bother me. I don't expect it will take five
years, or even one, to be able to contribute value to the community.
> Finally: precisely what evil power has you spouting off on c.l.l instead
> of creating this imagined super Lisp web environment that will make us
> forget all the other Lisp web successes we have read about?
(a) those two activities are not mutually exclusive, (b) see "not enough
Lisp" above, (c) I'd love to have more info on the Lisp web successes,
and (d) I agree - less talk and more action is a good thing
> hth, kenny
>
Not really, but I do appreciate the effort.
Brian
Brian Adkins wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
All of us. It's endemic to the language.
> No argument about "not enough Lisp". I've been straightforward about
> that on this newsgroup. I think there can be value in the perspective of
> someone that's spent a couple weeks with the language.
This applies mostly to the difficulties of learning the language,
not its merit as a language in general. Lisp is emphatically not
designed for beginners, so there's not much point in comparing it
to Ruby or Python. Lisp tends to get dumped on by people who don't
understand it, so all you'll achieve is to piss off a lot of very
capable hackers who hear this kind of stuff every day.
--
Dan
www.prairienet.org/~dsb
Dan Bensen wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
>
> All of us. It's endemic to the language.
>
>> No argument about "not enough Lisp". I've been straightforward about
>> that on this newsgroup. I think there can be value in the perspective
>> of someone that's spent a couple weeks with the language.
>
> This applies mostly to the difficulties of learning the language,
> not its merit as a language in general. Lisp is emphatically not
> designed for beginners, so there's not much point in comparing it
> to Ruby or Python. Lisp tends to get dumped on by people who don't
> understand it, so all you'll achieve is to piss off a lot of very
> capable hackers who hear this kind of stuff every day.
>
I'll take the blame for not communicating clearly enough. I was not
intending to dump on Lisp; otherwise, I wouldn't be investing the time
to learn it.
In article <············@wildfire.prairienet.org>,
Dan Bensen <··········@cyberspace.net> wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
>
> All of us. It's endemic to the language.
And one of the main reasons no one ever gets any real work done.
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Dan Bensen <··········@cyberspace.net> wrote:
| > Brian Adkins wrote:
| > > Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
| >
| > All of us. It's endemic to the language.
|
| And one of the main reasons no one ever gets any real work done.
+---------------
Which is why I'm *so* glad I moved over to The Dark Side a few years
ago. I was spending all my time writing Scheme interpreters from
scratch and writing & re-writing libraries to go with them and getting
very little done with *using* it! But with Common Lisp, it's so *huge*
that [except for mythical figures such as Bruno Haible and Roger Corman]
no-one in his/her right mind would *ever* think of trying to write a
full CL from scratch by themselves!! [Hmmm... So maybe they *weren't*
altogether in their right minds!] Heck, it's even hard to just *learn*
the language completely, much less implement it.
Plus, I found that almost all of the little library functions I
had been writing & re-writing in Scheme are already *there* in CL
[usually already highly-optimized by the implementation], albeit
sometimes with non-obvious names [e.g., REMOVE-IF-NOT for FILTER,
or MISMATCH & SEARCH instead of MATCH]. I don't even use CL-PPCRE
very often.
So now that I'm not wasting my time on senseless re-implementations
of a base language, I can waste my time on writing & re-writing web
applications infrastructures in CL... ;-}
-Rob
p.s. Yes, I *do* have my own web application infrastructure, in
CMUCL, with a couple of "production" sites running since 2002 or so.
Very boring, since it "just works". The one on my own web site has
been been running the same image of CMUCL for 143 days now.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Dan Bensen <··········@cyberspace.net> wrote:
> | > Brian Adkins wrote:
> | > > Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
> | >
> | > All of us. It's endemic to the language.
> |
> | And one of the main reasons no one ever gets any real work done.
> +---------------
>
> Which is why I'm *so* glad I moved over to The Dark Side a few years
> ago. I was spending all my time writing Scheme interpreters from
> scratch and writing & re-writing libraries to go with them and getting
> very little done with *using* it! But with Common Lisp, it's so *huge*
> that [except for mythical figures such as Bruno Haible and Roger Corman]
> no-one in his/her right mind would *ever* think of trying to write a
> full CL from scratch by themselves!!
I'm still thinking doing that... When I'm far from my computer, I
even write pieces of a CL implementation in LispMe on my PDA, to tell
you how hopeless I am.
> [Hmmm... So maybe they *weren't*
> altogether in their right minds!] Heck, it's even hard to just *learn*
> the language completely, much less implement it.
> [...]
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
+---------------
| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
| > But with Common Lisp, it's so *huge* that ... no-one in his/her
| > right mind would *ever* think of trying to write a full CL from
| > scratch by themselves!!
|
| I'm still thinking doing that... When I'm far from my computer, I
| even write pieces of a CL implementation in LispMe on my PDA, to tell
| you how hopeless I am.
+---------------
(*blush*) Me, too. It's a terribly bad habit that's hard to give up.
About a year and a half ago I made a stab at a "Quick & Dirty Lisp",
just to see if I could code up a usable CL subset[1] suitable for
"scripting"[2], and I sort of managed, at least for a *very* tiny
subset:
qdl> (oblist)
(FLOAD >= <= > < /= = / * - + 1- 1+ ASSOC LENGTH LIST CONS CDR CAR
MLO D32 DEBUG OBLIST EVAL APPLY FUNCALL VECTOR TERPRI PRINC PRINT
LET* LET DEFUN SETQ IF PROGN LAMBDA QUOTE TEST123 T NIL)
qdl> (defun foo (a b)
(* a (+ b 3)))
FOO
qdl> (foo 12 34)
444
qdl> (apply 'foo (cdr (list 98 12 34)))
444
qdl> (let ((v (vector 1 2 (+ 1 2) (- 5 2) (/ 30 6))))
(list (length v) v))
(5 #(1 2 3 4 5))
qdl> (assoc 'bar '((foo . 123) (bar . 456) (baz . 789)))
(BAR . 456)
qdl> (let* ((v1 32)
(v2 (/ v1 4))
(f (lambda (x) (+ v2 (* x 3)))))
(funcall f 5))
23
qdl> (let ((n 0))
(defun counter1 ()
(setq n (1+ n))))
COUNTER1
qdl> (let ((n 0))
(defun counter2 ()
(setq n (1+ n))))
COUNTER2
qdl> (counter1)
1
qdl> (counter1)
2
qdl> (counter1)
3
qdl> (counter2)
1
qdl> (counter2)
2
qdl> (counter1)
4
qdl> (counter1)
5
qdl> (counter2)
3
qdl>
Fortunately, I didn't waste *too* much time on it. ;-}
[Never *did* write a GC, actually.]
And then I went back to coding in CMUCL...
-Rob
[1] Within the strict definition of a CL subset given by the standard:
http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/Body/sec_1-7.html
[Though of course that OBLIST function is not standard.
It and DEBUG were just in there for... well, debugging.]
[2] Even though tests showed that CMUCL was plenty fast for all of
my "scripting" needs -- slightly faster than CLISP, actually.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Brian Adkins wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>> I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
>>> "If Lisp is so great why don't libraries, etc. exist for it like they do
>>> for Ruby, Python, ...".
>>
>> You are wondering why Shakespeare never conceived a hit game show like
>> Deal Or No Deal, and why Tiger Woods sucks at miniature golf. Why
>> Pavarotti never has and never will make it to the Billboard Pop 100,
>> and why Dale Earnhart got fired after one week driving a taxi in NYC
>> (he could only make left turns).
>>
>> I am afraid to ask what else you wonder about.
>
> Why wonder when you can just make it up?
Oops. s/wonder/ask/
Brian Adkins wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>
>>> I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
>>> "If Lisp is so great why don't libraries, etc. exist for it like they do
>>> for Ruby, Python, ...".
>>
>>
>> You are wondering why Shakespeare never conceived a hit game show like
>> Deal Or No Deal, and why Tiger Woods sucks at miniature golf. Why
>> Pavarotti never has and never will make it to the Billboard Pop 100,
>> and why Dale Earnhart got fired after one week driving a taxi in NYC
>> (he could only make left turns).
>>
>> I am afraid to ask what else you wonder about.
>
>
> Why wonder when you can just make it up?
Ah, you see thru my little ruse.
>
> Actually, I've only just started looking into what libraries are
> available, but since I've heard multiple experienced Lisp folks complain
> about the lack of libraries and how people should be writing more, I
> assumed there could be some truth to that. Hopefully as I dig in, I'll
> come to the same realization as you.
>
> At any rate, that was my perception as a noob. If I'm wrong, than I'm
> sorry for furthering misinformation, and I'm looking forward to
> discovering what's available.
Well, I think you are in-between. I have read a lot of Lisp web app
success stories, but they were from Lisp Gods, and you are probably
right that no clear leader has emerged as the Lisp web app package.
But my point was different. The fact that something this mundane does
not exist does not justify sentences beginning "If Lisp is so great...".
It is so great, but not too many people use it in anger and the ones
that do are the aforementioned Gods having a fine time thank you very
much with their Lisp web environments.
>
>>> I do feel that the lack of a clear open source Lisp leader (as far as I
>>> can tell)
>>
>>
>> As far as I can tell we are still waiting for a Lisp noob who does not
>> immediately want to run out and write their own Lisp. Could make it a
>> tad tough for a leader to separate themself from the pack.
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
Omigod! Follow this NG for six months. Every other one, i would say.
But that is the problem with Lisp. I create a great, robust system ike
Cells and we just got another report of someone saying, "That's neat.
let me write one." I am pretty sure their are more Cells knock-offs than
users. The coding is so much damn fun we always roll our own, and this
is why no one really cares about libraries and why none ever emerges as
a sub-standard.
>
> I expect the existing open source implementations weren't written by noobs.
>
>>> could be a hindrance compared to Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP & now
>>> Java,
>>
>>
>> Sorry, those are what?
>
>
> Let me reverse the question, what advantages do you see in multiple open
> source implementations of Lisp?
You may not be aware that if i were God I would reassign all those
people to developing a proper Lisp Web package (and other useable stuff)
> Are you asserting that if I start
> developing on clisp, I'll have no trouble switching to sbcl or Lispworks
> (or vice versa). Are there no "lock in" issues with the various
> implementations?
Not if you stick to the standard. And use CFFI instead of native FFIs.
Commercial vendors offer lock-in extras. Don't use them if you do not
want to get locked in.
>
>> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
>> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
>> wannabe.
>
>
> Not as funny as your other posts, but it'll do to lighten the mood a
> bit. I was going to argue with the "self-loathing", but that's mutually
> exclusive with me responding, so you got me.
Where should I send your "Certified Flamed By Kenny" t-shirt?
>
>>> but I don't have enough knowledge/experience to judge that at this
>>> time.
>>
>>
>> Thank /god/ that did not keep you from lecturing us on our deficiencies!
>
>
> Wasn't meant to be a lecture.
>
>> I am sorry, we have a little thing called a standard, you may not know
>> what that is since you are worshipping all these languages that are so
>> uninteresting that only one person wants to implement one. We can have
>> as many implemenations as we like, and things like Cells-Gtk and Celtk
>> and Ltk and Cello will run on all of them.
>
>
> That's good to know. It was my impression that I may run into some
> issues moving code between implementations (mainly in areas not
> addressed by the standard), which would require me to spend a lot of
> time researching the appropriate implementation to deploy on to avoid
> pain switching.
No, if you stick to the standard the cross-implementation ports are
pretty tame.
>
>>> Sorry for the rambling, too much coffee today :(
>>
>>
>> No, I believe the explanation is "not enough Lisp". Could you please
>> STFU and go write Lisp for a year (or five) and then come back to
>> lecture us? We'll be here, like some of us have been for goin on fifty
>> years. I'm just a pup, going on twelve.
>
>
> No argument about "not enough Lisp". I've been straightforward about
> that on this newsgroup. I think there can be value in the perspective of
> someone that's spent a couple weeks with the language.
Release the hounds! (We get that sooooo much.)
> If you feel
> differently, it doesn't bother me. I don't expect it will take five
> years, or even one, to be able to contribute value to the community.
I created Cells inside of thirty days. How long is your Ultimate Web
environment going to take?
>
>> Finally: precisely what evil power has you spouting off on c.l.l
>> instead of creating this imagined super Lisp web environment that will
>> make us forget all the other Lisp web successes we have read about?
>
>
> (a) those two activities are not mutually exclusive, (b) see "not enough
> Lisp" above, (c) I'd love to have more info on the Lisp web successes,
> and (d) I agree - less talk and more action is a good thing
The larger point is that the ideal Lisp noob (a) identifies that they do
not want to program in any other language again and (b) when they notice
X is missing, Just Creates It, they do not wander in here and say "Why
Hasn't the Open Source Fairy Delivered X?" and they certainly do not say
with "If Lisp is so good, how come there is no X?"
kzo
--
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
> But my point was different. The fact that something this mundane does
> not exist does not justify sentences beginning "If Lisp is so great...".
> It is so great, but not too many people use it in anger and the ones
> that do are the aforementioned Gods having a fine time thank you very
> much with their Lisp web environments.
I can see why I was misunderstood - and this possibly set the tone of
your response.
I'm *not* saying I agree with the line of reasoning typically associated
with the "If Lisp is so great..." quote, because it's usually
fallacious. What I meant to convey was more along the lines that, as a
noob, I've wondered about the perceived lack of libraries - I shouldn't
have used the quote from one-of-them because I'm not one-of-them (of
course, I'm not yet one-of-you either).
I realize that *if* such a lack exists, there are probably multiple and
complex reasons unrelated to the merit of the language (we are talking
about people here). It doesn't really matter to me - if they do exist,
great, if not, I guess I'll just have to help out when I'm able.
>> Let me reverse the question, what advantages do you see in multiple
>> open source implementations of Lisp?
>
> You may not be aware that if i were God I would reassign all those
> people to developing a proper Lisp Web package (and other useable stuff)
Actually yes, that's why was a bit surprised. Obviously I pissed you off
unintentionally. Well, I'm still finding my way, I expect it'll happen
again.
>> Are you asserting that if I start developing on clisp, I'll have no
>> trouble switching to sbcl or Lispworks (or vice versa). Are there no
>> "lock in" issues with the various implementations?
>
> Not if you stick to the standard. And use CFFI instead of native FFIs.
> Commercial vendors offer lock-in extras. Don't use them if you do not
> want to get locked in.
Cool.
>>> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
>>> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
>>> wannabe.
>>
>>
>> Not as funny as your other posts, but it'll do to lighten the mood a
>> bit. I was going to argue with the "self-loathing", but that's
>> mutually exclusive with me responding, so you got me.
>
> Where should I send your "Certified Flamed By Kenny" t-shirt?
Hey, I feel like I just got my first door ding on a new car. Now I can
relax ;)
>> No argument about "not enough Lisp". I've been straightforward about
>> that on this newsgroup. I think there can be value in the perspective
>> of someone that's spent a couple weeks with the language.
>
> Release the hounds! (We get that sooooo much.)
Point taken - it's actually humorous (for me) when I see it from your
perspective :)
>> If you feel differently, it doesn't bother me. I don't expect it will
>> take five years, or even one, to be able to contribute value to the
>> community.
>
> I created Cells inside of thirty days. How long is your Ultimate Web
> environment going to take?
I have no idea. Hopefully, I won't need to do it (I'm lazy). My first
step is to evaluate what already exists out there. I'm not looking for
the "Ultimate Web" environment, just something a little (or a lot)
better than what I have now - isn't that always the case. It probably
exists, and I can just build on it.
>>> Finally: precisely what evil power has you spouting off on c.l.l
>>> instead of creating this imagined super Lisp web environment that
>>> will make us forget all the other Lisp web successes we have read about?
>>
>> (a) those two activities are not mutually exclusive, (b) see "not
>> enough Lisp" above, (c) I'd love to have more info on the Lisp web
>> successes, and (d) I agree - less talk and more action is a good thing
>
> The larger point is that the ideal Lisp noob (a) identifies that they do
> not want to program in any other language again and
I've never been this enthusiastic with a new language this early. Like I
said before, unless there's a big gotcha I don't know about (and I don't
think there is), things should move along nicely.
> (b) when they notice
> X is missing, Just Creates It, they do not wander in here and say "Why
> Hasn't the Open Source Fairy Delivered X?" and they certainly do not say
> with "If Lisp is so good, how come there is no X?"
With respect to application level libraries/frameworks, I agree. If it's
not there, I'll create it. With respect to Lisp implementations
(interpreter/compiler), I have no doubt I'm unqualified to build one,
hence my desire to judge that a sufficient one exists. It appears to me
that several sufficient ones exist, so it's a non-issue. I'd prefer to
have one obvious open source implementation, but that's just a preference.
>
> kzo
>
On Mar 10, 6:44 pm, Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually yes, that's why was a bit surprised. Obviously I pissed you off
> unintentionally. Well, I'm still finding my way, I expect it'll happen
> again.
>
Granted, I've spent more time lurking here than anything else, but
from what I've seen if you are trying to learn Lisp on c.l.l and don't
get flamed by Ken Tilton at some point in your first couple of months
you either got it first time or are simply not trying hard enough. I
say this with all sincerity for KT, who I have taken to internally
referring to as "Socrates with a big stick."
-Adam
Adam Jones wrote:
> Granted, I've spent more time lurking here than anything else, but
> from what I've seen if you are trying to learn Lisp on c.l.l and don't
> get flamed by Ken Tilton at some point in your first couple of months
> you either got it first time or are simply not trying hard enough. I
> say this with all sincerity for KT, who I have taken to internally
> referring to as "Socrates with a big stick."
That's quite demeaning to Socrates.
Robert Dodier
Brian Adkins wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> But my point was different. The fact that something this mundane does
>> not exist does not justify sentences beginning "If Lisp is so
>> great...". It is so great, but not too many people use it in anger and
>> the ones that do are the aforementioned Gods having a fine time thank
>> you very much with their Lisp web environments.
>
> I can see why I was misunderstood - and this possibly set the tone of
> your response.
>
> I'm *not* saying I agree with the line of reasoning typically associated
> with the "If Lisp is so great..." quote,
Oh, snap, how did I ever get that impression from?:
Brian Adkins wrote:
> I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
> "If Lisp is so great..."
Forget it, you can't get two t-shirts.
kzo
Ken wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>> But my point was different. The fact that something this mundane does
>>> not exist does not justify sentences beginning "If Lisp is so
>>> great...". It is so great, but not too many people use it in anger
>>> and the ones that do are the aforementioned Gods having a fine time
>>> thank you very much with their Lisp web environments.
>>
>> I can see why I was misunderstood - and this possibly set the tone of
>> your response.
>>
>> I'm *not* saying I agree with the line of reasoning typically
>> associated with the "If Lisp is so great..." quote,
>
> Oh, snap, how did I ever get that impression from?:
>
> Brian Adkins wrote:
> > I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
> > "If Lisp is so great..."
>
> Forget it, you can't get two t-shirts.
>
> kzo
Well, let's see, maybe it's because if you take little snippets out of
context you can get confused. Aren't you the same guy who railed on some
other guy for playing "gotcha" a while back?
If you take the whole post in context, which includes statements by me
such as:
"I see no reason why a framework that makes web development in Lisp as
easy and enjoyable as Rails can't be put together."
"Even if Lisp were *only* comparable to Ruby vs. superior with respect to
productivity, the performance gain is a significant factor."
You might get a feel for where I was coming from - pretty glowing, eh?
Let's continue.
And of course, the most important point which you apparently missed was,
that directly after I said, "the thought has crossed my mind", I
*immediately* explained that I perceived the same situation in the
Python world and it was rectified in a relatively short period of time.
"Well, I remember what the Python web development
infrastructure looked like when I researched it years ago - it was
appeared bad enough to me that I switched to Ruby/Rails. Now (possibly
in part to Rails lighting a fire under the Python community), it appears
that Python has some really nice frameworks. So, I don't think it would
take all that much effort to cause the same thing to happen with Lisp
unless there is a serious deficiency in the language I'm overlooking and
all evidence so far indicates that's not the case."
Just admit it, you were bored and wanted to pick a fight. Well, you
picked the wrong bored guy :)
Brian Adkins wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But my point was different. The fact that something this mundane
>>>> does not exist does not justify sentences beginning "If Lisp is so
>>>> great...". It is so great, but not too many people use it in anger
>>>> and the ones that do are the aforementioned Gods having a fine time
>>>> thank you very much with their Lisp web environments.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can see why I was misunderstood - and this possibly set the tone of
>>> your response.
>>>
>>> I'm *not* saying I agree with the line of reasoning typically
>>> associated with the "If Lisp is so great..." quote,
>>
>>
>> Oh, snap, how did I ever get that impression from?:
>>
>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> > I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
>> > "If Lisp is so great..."
>>
>> Forget it, you can't get two t-shirts.
>>
>> kzo
>
>
> Well, let's see, maybe it's because if you take little snippets out of
> context you can get confused.
That is not what "out of context" means. You threw in more quotes but
they do not reveal new context that alters the meaning of what you said.
Twice. That you are open to the possibility that a language could in
principle be unable to support a Web app. Your new citations show you
believe Lisp can /in fact/ support a Web app.
Do they have the distinction between a priori and a posteriori in your
banjo-pickin, moonshine-slurping, carcinogen-growing, basketball-playing
neck of the woods? How about de jure vs. de facto? Simular.
> Aren't you the same guy who railed on some
> other guy for playing "gotcha" a while back?
You refer to Pascal C, who thought he saw a contradiction between two
positions I took on the crappiness of open Lisp environments and decided
to interrupt discussions of those positions by claiming I was being
inconsistent, classic Garretese under whose spell Pascal has fallen,
mistaking compulsive word banter (Gotcha) for useful debate.
I did not quote you back to yourself until you put your words on the
table as the topic for discussion: "I can see why I was misunderstood".
So now we /are/ talking about your state of mind and the consistency of
your statements about it. Not Gotcha.
btw, also not Gotcha: I was honestly thrown by "I was misunderstood"
because of my clear recollection of what you had said earlier.
>
> If you take the whole post in context, which includes statements by me
> such as:
>
> "I see no reason why a framework that makes web development in Lisp as
> easy and enjoyable as Rails can't be put together."
>
> "Even if Lisp were *only* comparable to Ruby vs. superior with respect to
> productivity, the performance gain is a significant factor."
>
> You might get a feel for where I was coming from - pretty glowing, eh?
> Let's continue.
>
> And of course, the most important point which you apparently missed was,
> that directly after I said, "the thought has crossed my mind", I
> *immediately* explained that I perceived the same situation in the
> Python world and it was rectified in a relatively short period of time.
>
> "Well, I remember what the Python web development
> infrastructure looked like when I researched it years ago - it was
> appeared bad enough to me that I switched to Ruby/Rails. Now (possibly
> in part to Rails lighting a fire under the Python community), it appears
> that Python has some really nice frameworks. So, I don't think it would
> take all that much effort to cause the same thing to happen with Lisp
> unless there is a serious deficiency in the language I'm overlooking and
> all evidence so far indicates that's not the case."
>
> Just admit it, you were bored and wanted to pick a fight. Well, you
> picked the wrong bored guy :)
No, you are perfect, you can't think worth a damn but you do not give
up, the hounds are having a ball.
Above you conveniently offer the smoking gun: "unless there is a serious
deficiency in the language...all evidence so far indicates...not".
So you remain concerned there is a limitation in Lisp making it a priori
impossible to do Web apps, but "the evidence so far" a posteriori
reassures you otherwise. I am only concerned about the a priori doubt,
which "so far" still exists.
So tell us, how could any serious 3GL (two, really, if you count C) have
a deficiency that would make it impossible (or even ugly, if that helps)
for it to support Web apps?
kzo
--
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Ken Tilton wrote:
> So tell us, how could any serious 3GL (two, really, if you count C) have
> a deficiency that would make it impossible (or even ugly, if that helps)
> for it to support Web apps?
I think languages vary in their suitability for particular tasks, but
that's not what I'm talking about. It's clear that Common Lisp is quite
suited to a large number of tasks, including web development. I'm more
interested in learning about the supporting infrastructure which has a
significant impact on the cost/benefit - particularly in the short-term.
I'm simply in the process of evaluating the pros/cons of developing web
apps using CL + X vs. Ruby + Y in my business, that's it. I have a good
handle on Ruby + Y, and CL looks great to me, or I wouldn't even be
going down this road, so that leaves X.
X includes runtime implementations, availability of existing software
(web servers, database interfaces, HTML processing/generation, image
manipulation, text manipulation, authentication/encryption,
packaging/deployment, credit card processing, socket libraries, web
service protocols, etc.), availability of existing, or future, Lisp
programmers and other factors. So it's *possible* that
(and (> CL Ruby) (< (+ CL X) (+ Ruby Y))) for me, at this point in time.
You have more information about both CL and X than I do, so it may be an
answered or uninteresting question to you, but I think it's an important
and reasonable question for me to pursue.
Although I'm sorry to have contributed to the noise by attracting your
attention (warranted or otherwise), the reason I posted my thoughts in a
public forum (instead of simply doing the research) was for the
potential of learning from the experience of someone who has gone down
this road before me to save me some trial and error. That's not going so
well of course, so I'll try and limit future posts to specific questions
about the language and/or libraries. Hopefully this post will provide
less fodder for the hound...
> kzo
>
Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>
> X includes runtime implementations, availability of existing software
> (web servers, database interfaces, HTML processing/generation, image
> manipulation, text manipulation, authentication/encryption,
> packaging/deployment, credit card processing, socket libraries, web
> service protocols, etc.), availability of existing, or future, Lisp
> programmers and other factors. So it's *possible* that (and (> CL
> Ruby) (< (+ CL X) (+ Ruby Y))) for me, at this point in time.
Well, you already known about the various free implementations, and see
my other post regarding web servers and HTML generation. CLSQL does a
pretty decent job interfacing with databases. Not certain what you mean
by image manipulation, but there are libraries for creating images, and
no doubt for editing/inspecting them as well. Text manipulation is
simply handling strings, or see my post re. CL-PPCRE for regular
expressions if that's what you mean. Authentication and encryption in a
web app should be handled by the webserver, no? But if not, libraries
exist for encryption--simple authentication is too easy to worry about
(hash table of user names and passwords, no?). For packaging &
deployment see ASDF and ASDF-INSTALL. No idea about credit card
processing. You shouldn't need to worry about sockets when writing a
web app (that's for the web framework or Apache to handle), but
obviously socket support is there. Not certain what you mean by 'web
service protocols.'
> Although I'm sorry to have contributed to the noise by attracting your
> attention (warranted or otherwise), the reason I posted my thoughts in
> a public forum (instead of simply doing the research) was for the
> potential of learning from the experience of someone who has gone down
> this road before me to save me some trial and error.
Hope my notes are useful to you.
> That's not going so well of course, so I'll try and limit future posts
> to specific questions about the language and/or libraries. Hopefully
> this post will provide less fodder for the hound...
Oh, post away. Kenny's just one guy, after all. Killfiles can be
useful (although in his case I find him just interesting enough to
read)/
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
That's what I say when people ask me 'aren't you scared of the traffic?'
'Why? The cars are all stopped.' And they look sheepish and agree that
commuting on a bicycle in peak hour isn't that much of a problem.
--Zebee Johnstone
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Well, you already known about the various free implementations, and see
> my other post regarding web servers and HTML generation. CLSQL does a
> pretty decent job interfacing with databases. Not certain what you mean
> by image manipulation, but there are libraries for creating images, and
> no doubt for editing/inspecting them as well.
Interfacing with Imagemagick would be sufficient. Actually, for my
current needs, simply being able to invoke Imagemagick's convert command
from within Lisp (e.g. backtick in Perl or Ruby) would be fine. I
noticed a couple Imagemagick libs on the cliki.
> Text manipulation is
> simply handling strings, or see my post re. CL-PPCRE for regular
> expressions if that's what you mean.
Yes, I believe CL_PPCRE would do nicely.
> Authentication and encryption in a
> web app should be handled by the webserver, no?
Some REST folks would say yes wrt having the web server handle
authentication, I prefer to have the app handle it. The web server will
handle encryption of traffic via SSL, but I need to encrypt data in the
database, so a robust library for handling AES, SHA and other acronyms
would be great. Ironclad seems to be the only thing providing AES on the
cliki.
> But if not, libraries
> exist for encryption--simple authentication is too easy to worry about
> (hash table of user names and passwords, no?).
Sure, add a pinch of salt and hash...
> For packaging &
> deployment see ASDF and ASDF-INSTALL.
I meant remote deployment - something like capistrano. Not a big deal,
but would make things easier to update remote hosts with new code.
> No idea about credit card
> processing. You shouldn't need to worry about sockets when writing a
> web app (that's for the web framework or Apache to handle),
On rare occasions, the web app needs to make requests on a socket.
> but
> obviously socket support is there. Not certain what you mean by 'web
> service protocols.'
XML-RPC, SOAP (ugh!)
>
> Hope my notes are useful to you.
Thanks
Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Interfacing with Imagemagick would be sufficient. Actually, for my
> current needs, simply being able to invoke Imagemagick's convert
> command from within Lisp (e.g. backtick in Perl or Ruby) would be
> fine.
Well, CFFI/UFFI (I never can remember which is more current) provide an
interface to C libraries in general, and so wrapping ImageMagick is a
Simple Matter of Programming:-)
The various Lisp implementations offer different ways of talking to the
shell. I know that SBCL has one, although it's nowhere near as easy as
reading from (SHELL-COMMAND "ls") yet.
> I noticed a couple Imagemagick libs on the cliki.
That's probably the way to go, then.
>> For packaging & deployment see ASDF and ASDF-INSTALL.
>
> I meant remote deployment - something like capistrano. Not a big deal,
> but would make things easier to update remote hosts with new code.
ASDF-INSTALL can do that, actually, as long as you configure it properly
and I understand what you're looking for.
>> Not certain what you mean by 'web service protocols.'
>
> XML-RPC, SOAP (ugh!)
Not my area of expertise, but I imagine some of that stuff exists.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
12 is the number of months in the year and the number of signs of the
Zodiac. There were 12 apostles of Christ.
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>Interfacing with Imagemagick would be sufficient. Actually, for my
>>current needs, simply being able to invoke Imagemagick's convert
>>command from within Lisp (e.g. backtick in Perl or Ruby) would be
>>fine.
>
>
> Well, CFFI/UFFI (I never can remember which is more current)
CFFI.
> provide an
> interface to C libraries in general, and so wrapping ImageMagick is a
> Simple Matter of Programming:-)
Or of downloading Cello. Only problem there is that get so much waste
and have to delete the other bindings: OpenGL, FTGL, OpenAL, Tcl/Tk,
probably forgetting one. I always forget one.
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:28:41 +0100, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
> Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Interfacing with Imagemagick would be sufficient. Actually, for my
>> current needs, simply being able to invoke Imagemagick's convert
>> command from within Lisp (e.g. backtick in Perl or Ruby) would be
>> fine.
>
> Well, CFFI/UFFI (I never can remember which is more current) provide an
> interface to C libraries in general, and so wrapping ImageMagick is a
> Simple Matter of Programming:-)
>
CFFI is more recent. It offers a extension that allows the SWIG C header
processor to grind a interface to Lisp CFFI. (Previously only ACL FFI was
supported)
Could save you some time..
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:45:55 +0100, John Thingstad
<··············@chello.no> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:28:41 +0100, Robert Uhl
> <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Interfacing with Imagemagick would be sufficient. Actually, for my
>>> current needs, simply being able to invoke Imagemagick's convert
>>> command from within Lisp (e.g. backtick in Perl or Ruby) would be
>>> fine.
>>
>> Well, CFFI/UFFI (I never can remember which is more current) provide an
>> interface to C libraries in general, and so wrapping ImageMagick is a
>> Simple Matter of Programming:-)
>>
>
> CFFI is more recent. It offers a extension that allows the SWIG C header
> processor to grind a interface to Lisp CFFI. (Previously only ACL FFI
> was supported)
> Could save you some time..
>
Hmm! SWIG also supports uffi..
http://www.swig.org/Doc1.3/Lisp.html
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>
>> Well, CFFI/UFFI (I never can remember which is more current) provide
>> an interface to C libraries in general, and so wrapping ImageMagick
>> is a Simple Matter of Programming:-)
>
> CFFI is more recent. It offers a extension that allows the SWIG C header
> processor to grind a interface to Lisp CFFI. (Previously only ACL FFI
> was supported)
Any idea where to download the proper GPG key for the bloke who signs
the CFFI tarballs? There's no indication on the site...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
My ambition, naturally, is to have a student quote my own words back
to me without attribution in a final paper. That's an office hour I'd
look forward to. --Kieran Healy, on plagiarism
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Any idea where to download the proper GPG key for the bloke who signs
> the CFFI tarballs? There's no indication on the site...
I think that's me: <http://common-lisp.net/~loliveira/pubkey.asc>
--
Luís Oliveira
http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/
·············@deadspam.com (Luís Oliveira) writes:
>
>> Any idea where to download the proper GPG key for the bloke who signs
>> the CFFI tarballs? There's no indication on the site...
>
> I think that's me: <http://common-lisp.net/~loliveira/pubkey.asc>
Thanks. You may wish to supply it to the MIT keyserver so that folks
can find it a bit more easily. There's also a common-lisp.net or cliki
or something list of well-known keys; at least a month ago when I was
upgrading CLSQL your key didn't seem to be on it.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Part of it is the tragedy of democracy; they've dragged the whole driving
thing down to the least common denominator so that every punter can do it,
and there's no longer any room for trying to be better than average.
--Anthony de Boer
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:03:35 +0100, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
> No idea about credit card processing.
My recommendation is to NEVER keep data like credit cards on your cite.
For low traffic maybe a paypal account will do.
For large commercial enterprises with a significant load a more
flexible solution might be needed.
worldpay is a service offered by the Bank of Scotland.
The credit card numbers never enter your cite, you just request a service
which reports back and says if the transaction went OK. These companies
supply insurance against fraud so your A** is covered.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
On 2007-03-12 19:51:04 +0000, "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> said:
> My recommendation is to NEVER keep data like credit cards on your cite.
Very good advice.
I worked for a while for a payment processing company and the moment
you handle credit card information in a non-trivial way you become
absolutely swamped in compliance requirements which are actually quite
hard to meet. I can see that really large places probably want to do
this in-house, but even then I'm not sure it's worth it, and it
certainly would not be for anyone below, say, Amazon in size.
--tim
Brian Adkins wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> So tell us, how could any serious 3GL (two, really, if you count C)
>> have a deficiency that would make it impossible (or even ugly, if that
>> helps) for it to support Web apps?
>
>
> I think languages vary in their suitability for particular tasks,
The inaugural LispNYC meeting opened with that remark. The minutes show
I lunged across the table and was stopped only by the rather strong
choke collar the organizers had had the foresight to provide for me.
Are you /sure/ you should be leading a Lisp beverage club? When do I get
to give my Cells rant?
kzo
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> writes:
>
> Do they have the distinction between a priori and a posteriori in your
> banjo-pickin, moonshine-slurping, carcinogen-growing,
> basketball-playing neck of the woods?
And folks wonder why its is we Southerners care very little for
Yankees...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it
wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging had
to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I realised
that a large part of my life from then on was going to be spent in
finding mistakes in my own programs.
--Maurice Wilkes discovers debugging, 1949
Some entity, AKA Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> writes:
> >
> > Do they have the distinction between a priori and a posteriori in your
> > banjo-pickin, moonshine-slurping, carcinogen-growing,
> > basketball-playing neck of the woods?
>
> And folks wonder why its is we Southerners care very little for
> Yankees...
Nah, they just can't make half decent grits.
Cor
--
The biggest problem LISP has is that it does not apeal to dumb people
If this failed to satisfy you try reading the HyperSpec or woman frig
(defvar MyComputer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
Read the policy before mailing http://www.clsnet.nl/sendmail.html
Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>
> I have no idea. Hopefully, I won't need to do it (I'm lazy). My first
> step is to evaluate what already exists out there. I'm not looking for
> the "Ultimate Web" environment, just something a little (or a lot)
> better than what I have now - isn't that always the case. It probably
> exists, and I can just build on it.
Take a look at Hunchentoot <http://weitz.de/hunchentoot/>. It offers
the essentials: a web server, capable of talking to Apache vie mod_proxy
or mod_lisp; dispatching based on URL, cookies, sessions, access to HTTP
headers if desired and so on.
You'll need to tack on either a templating language or HTML-generating
code. For the first, I like CL-EMB
<http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-emb/>; for the latter CL-WHO
<http://weitz.de/cl-who/>. These approaches can be used together, of
course. CL-EMB isn't perfect, but it seems the best of the
currently-available choices. What the world really needs is a
Weitz-written template language. Which we actually have--it's just that
it's (IMHO) ugly and verbose as hell. Other than that, it's pretty
nice.
You'll also be quite likely to need CL-PPCRE <http://weitz.de/cl-ppcre/>
at some point: it provides portable Perl-compatible regular expressions,
with a pretty pleasant interface.
Yes, almost every one of these is written by Dr. Edi Weitz, who is a
one-man Open Source Fairy. His code is generally clean, efficient and
nice to use. Generally, when you're looking for a library first see
what he's written--only go with something else if there's some
compelling reason not to.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Most non-Unix managers conclude that the vi editor is either extraterrestrial
in origin or was devised by the original Unix developers as part of a secret
communications code to reach another dimension.
--Communications Week, 26 July 1993
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell we are still waiting for a Lisp noob who does
>>> not immediately want to run out and write their own Lisp. Could make
>>> it a tad tough for a leader to separate themself from the pack.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, which noobs are wanting to write their own Lisp?
>
> Omigod! Follow this NG for six months. Every other one, i would say.
>
> But that is the problem with Lisp. I create a great, robust system ike
> Cells and we just got another report of someone saying, "That's neat.
> let me write one." I am pretty sure their are more Cells knock-offs than
> users. The coding is so much damn fun we always roll our own, and this
> is why no one really cares about libraries and why none ever emerges as
> a sub-standard.
Ah, I think there's a disconnect here. When I was talking about an open
source leader (or someone writing their own Lisp), I was referring
solely to a Lisp implementation (interpreter/compiler), not a piece of
Lisp application software.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
> wannabe.
Assuming that wasn't totally ad-hominem (probably a bad assumption), let
me clarify one point. The reason I'm learning Lisp is not because I'm
dissatisfied with Ruby, but because the experience of switching from
Java to Ruby demonstrated to me that big productivity jumps are
possible, and there's some evidence that Lisp may provide another jump
in productivity. Also, the "be" in "wannabe" implies you're either a
Rubyist, or not, or a Lispnik, or not. I'd say it's more of a continuum.
Brian Adkins wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
>> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
>> wannabe.
>
>
> Assuming that wasn't ...
That /was/ a despicable and wholly unjustified ad stateum low-blow, a
cheap shot deliberately designed to make me look bad. It crosses a
shocking line, beneath contempt, really. Clearly I had cut in my
flamethrower after-booster and lost all reason or sense of decency. It
almost makes me wonder if I was even serious...
:)
peace, kzo
--
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> Assuming that wasn't totally ad-hominem (probably a bad assumption),
> let me clarify one point.
Ken is just messing with you. He ALMOST got a rise out of you. Try again, Kenny!
-russ
Russell McManus wrote:
> Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Assuming that wasn't totally ad-hominem (probably a bad assumption),
>>let me clarify one point.
>
>
> Ken is just messing with you. He ALMOST got a rise out of you. Try again, Kenny!
Nah, I got Uhl and Dodier, my season permit is only good for two
rednecks. And Uhl says Kenny has made the South forget the Civil War,
not sure how I could top that. The hounds are exhausted, smiling in
their sleep. It's all good -- but someone has to talk Bubba and Jethro
down from their sniper nests.
kzo
--
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
On 2007-03-12 05:04:46 +0000, Ken Tilton <···@theoryyalgebra.com> said:
> Nah, I got Uhl and Dodier, my season permit is only good for two
> rednecks. And Uhl says Kenny has made the South forget the Civil War,
> not sure how I could top that. The hounds are exhausted, smiling in
> their sleep. It's all good -- but someone has to talk Bubba and Jethro
> down from their sniper nests.
I take back what I said. There's no need for Scheme people: the Lisp
people will eat each other all on their own.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
> wannabe.
I can't believe I'm responding to this, but of course I can see the
ridiculousness of a noob such as myself starting a Lisp user's group;
I'm not naive. I would much rather just hop down to an existing Lisp
user's group started by someone who is "qualified", but as far as I can
tell, there isn't one, so I can sit around and wait for something to
happen, or simply getting the wheels rolling. Maybe it will just be me
for the first year; no big deal.
Why would I want to do this? Well, one reason is to try and get a feel
for the quantity and capability of Lisp developers in this area because
if the Lisp experiment continues to go well, it would be nice to know if
there are some other developers I can pull in on a project instead of
being limited to just my own efforts. I'm taking a long-term view here.
I wasn't a Ruby developer a year ago, and now that's my primary
development platform, so in a year, there could be a group of Lisp
developers that don't exist now. It took less than 3 months to surpass
my Java productivity with Ruby, so if the Lisp tools are available,
hopefully it will be the same with Lisp. If not, then maybe it's not a
wise course of action for me - whether it's due to my deficiencies or
other reasons.
Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
>> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
>> wannabe.
>
> I can't believe I'm responding to this, but of course I can see the
> ridiculousness of a noob such as myself starting a Lisp user's group;
> I'm not naive. I would much rather just hop down to an existing Lisp
> user's group started by someone who is "qualified", but as far as I
> can tell, there isn't one, so I can sit around and wait for something
> to happen, or simply getting the wheels rolling. Maybe it will just be
> me for the first year; no big deal.
There are a few Lisp people in the Triangle, though all academics, to
my knowledge. In psychology at UNC: Forrest Young (of ViSta fame,
which is based on XLispStat rather than Common Lisp). In computer
science at NCSU: Michael Young, Jon Doyle, and me (I'm teaching a new
AI programming course this semester, using Norvig's PAIP and Seibel's
PCL). Perhaps some of the students in my class might get involved.
For what it's worth.
Rob St. Amant wrote:
> Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> Brian Adkins wrote:
>>> I do believe this would be typical of North Carolina intellectual
>>> prowess, to have a Lisp Social Club founded by a self-loathing Ruby
>>> wannabe.
>> I can't believe I'm responding to this, but of course I can see the
>> ridiculousness of a noob such as myself starting a Lisp user's group;
>> I'm not naive. I would much rather just hop down to an existing Lisp
>> user's group started by someone who is "qualified", but as far as I
>> can tell, there isn't one, so I can sit around and wait for something
>> to happen, or simply getting the wheels rolling. Maybe it will just be
>> me for the first year; no big deal.
>
> There are a few Lisp people in the Triangle, though all academics, to
> my knowledge. In psychology at UNC: Forrest Young (of ViSta fame,
> which is based on XLispStat rather than Common Lisp). In computer
> science at NCSU: Michael Young, Jon Doyle, and me (I'm teaching a new
> AI programming course this semester, using Norvig's PAIP and Seibel's
> PCL). Perhaps some of the students in my class might get involved.
> For what it's worth.
Excellent. Looks like a list of possible future speakers :) I'll see
what I can do about getting a simple web site up and possibly a mailing
list. If any of your students would like to get involved, feel free to
have them contact me - I'll send you an email with my contact info.
Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>
> The "halo effect" of Rails is pretty significant. I think a clear
> message about how to be productive developing web apps with Lisp (even
> if some frameworks/libraries have to be created, polished or
> repackaged) could spark some interest. I admit I was impressed enough
> with the Rails screencasts showing how to create X in Y minutes to
> check it out - and it actually worked as advertised!
>
> I see no reason why a framework that makes web development in Lisp as
> easy and enjoyable as Rails can't be put together.
I've been kinda playing with this for my Tasting Notes app
<http://latakia.dyndns.org/tasting-notes/>. I've been very happy with
Django on the Python side of things, and thought that it'd be cool to
try making a Lisp Django to help run my stuff. Right now it's very
basic, but I hope to improve it considerably.
At the moment, I'm just happy that I was able to replace my Python app
with a Lisp one. My next bit of work is to (finally) finish my port of
Blosxom, and get my blog working on it.
Maybe eventually I'll release skeletor to the public. It's a pretty
basic framework right now (hence the name), but it has made a few things
easier.
> Even if Lisp were *only* comparable to Ruby vs. superior with respect
> to productivity, the performance gain is a significant factor. Yes, I
> know you can scale Ruby/Rails; however, a 10x or more performance gain
> definitely got my attention.
Believe it or not, Lisp isn't particularly faster than Python for my web
app. It was actually slower, until I optimised two functions. But
then, I rather suspect that the bottleneck in a database-backed app is
the database, not the front end.
> I admit the same question I've heard from others has crossed my mind,
> "If Lisp is so great why don't libraries, etc. exist for it like they
> do for Ruby, Python, ...".
I think the problem is that thousands of libraries exist: little
one-offs that a fellow made to solve a problem, and never really got
around to releasing. It's almost too easy to write a library in Lisp!
> I do feel that the lack of a clear open source Lisp leader (as far as
> I can tell) could be a hindrance compared to Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP &
> now Java, but I don't have enough knowledge/experience to judge that
> at this time.
I've placed my bets on SBCL: native code, simple build process, decent
extensions. But no doubt CMUCL and CLISP will be around for years to
come. I don't think that their existence is too much of a hindrance,
any more than the existence of Jython and friends hurts Python.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Apple's original usability studies contradicted the Xerox ones. The
difference? Xerox studied people who were used to the idea of computers
and user interfaces. Apple studied random lusers. --Peter da Silva
On 2007-03-09 21:02:53 +0000, Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> said:
> Are the Lisp & Scheme languages & culture such that including both would
> make sense?
No. They will eat each other. They must be kept in separate cages
where they can not see each other.
On Mar 9, 5:02 pm, Brian Adkins <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lastly, are any of you near the triangle area of NC?
>
> Brian
I work for a company doing commercial Lisp development in RTP.
-- david