I studied Lisp programming in BSc3 (a few years ago) but now I have no
idea what it was about.Okay it is a logical programming
language.However I cant even write a simple program in Lisp.What does
one do to avoid this? Where can I get Lisp compilers?Is there any
language that is an improvement on Lisp because its old, who uses it
any longer?Please help to apply Lisp, I dont want it to sit idle
somewhere in my subconscious.
On Mar 16, 12:23 pm, "Gerald" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I studied Lisp programming in BSc3 (a few years ago) but now I have no
> idea what it was about.
"...Please don't assume Lisp is only useful for Animation and Graphics,
AI, Bioinformatics, B2B and E- Commerce, Data Mining, EDA/
Semiconductor applications, Expert Systems, Finance, Intelligent
Agents, Knowledge Management, Mechanical CAD, Modeling and Simulation,
Natural Language, Optimization, Research, Risk Analysis, Scheduling,
Telecom, and Web Authoring just because these are the only things they
happened to list."
Kent Pitman:
> Okay it is a logical programming
> language.
Actually it supports every style of programming I could think of,
procedural, functional, logical, Object oriented, Aspect, ...
> However I cant even write a simple program in Lisp.
If programmed in lisp there you'll get quickly on course
> What does one do to avoid this?
Use it, code in it especially. I forgoth Pascal completely now I'm
back again.
> Where can I get Lisp compilers?
If you're on windows try below in no particular order,
(linux has even more options, both free and commercial)
http://www.franz.com/downloads/#AllegroCL_Download
http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/lww-per.html
http://www.cormanlisp.com/download.html
http://clisp.cons.org/
http://ecls.sourceforge.net/
> Is there any language that is an improvement on Lisp because its old,
The only area where lisp needs improvements is concurrent
programming,
in order to match perfomance of ones like Erlang, Mozart ..
but I don't understand is this language or implementation issue
since Scheme has no problems of supporting thousands processes or
even millions as they claim in Gambit Scheme.
Pascal already pointed a lot of links and today you're spoiled of
choices from when to learn
lisp so just pick some and get going.
On 16 Mar 2007 08:07:07 -0700, "fireblade"
<·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only area where lisp needs improvements is concurrent
> programming, in order to match perfomance of ones like Erlang,
> Mozart ..
> but I don't understand is this language or implementation issue
> since Scheme has no problems of supporting thousands processes or
> even millions as they claim in Gambit Scheme.
Gambit uses a very lightweight "green" thread implementation that
allows lots of threads, but AFAIK it does _not_ support spreading
threads over multiple processors. You can, of course, start a
separate process for each processor.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Mar 17, 5:04 am, George Neuner <·········@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2007 08:07:07 -0700, "fireblade"
>
> <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only area wherelispneeds improvements is concurrent
> > programming, in order to match perfomance of ones like Erlang,
> > Mozart ..
> > but I don't understand is this language or implementation issue
> > since Scheme has no problems of supporting thousands processes or
> > even millions as they claim in Gambit Scheme.
>
> Gambit uses a very lightweight "green" thread implementation that
> allows lots of threads, but AFAIK it does _not_ support spreading
> threads over multiple processors.
> You can, of course, start a
> separate process for each processor.
I kinda lack practical experience in concurrency with more than
2 threads, but from readings that termite has a chance against
Erlang , todays first choice for concurrent programming,
makes me wonder why can't common lisp implement something
that runs like that.
>h, this is a problem with many languages and is not exclusive to Lisp.
Agreed but lisp is not anybody, it's the ultimate for me,
As a common lisper there's a question of pride (i still don't feel
necessity)
to say common lisp supports every kind of programming you can think
of.
(OO , imperative, functional, aspect ,you name it)
And for the first time somebody, the Erlang steps in and says
try making 80,000 processes, huh?
Scheme has termite on Gambit lisp has nothing even close.
What's lisp best shot ? 400-500 .
What is the problem to make very lightweight threads in lisp?
> A number of CL implementations allow shared-memory multitasking
>on SMP / multicore machines. If you want to use message-passing
>communication, GCL has an MPI plugin that lets you write message-
>passing parallel code. cl-store is an existing "pickler" (like
>Python's "pickle" facility) and if you combine it with MPI you'll get
>a nice general message-passing scheme.
>The true "parallel Lisp" efforts are focused on language design
>issues, like how to make writing parallel code easier. This is
>definitely work-in-progress as no one seems to have solved the "ideal
>parallel language" problem in _any_ language
I don't seek for ultimate parallel language I just wanna match
Erlang,
Mozart and termite/scheme.
cheers
bobi
On Apr 4, 6:43 am, "fireblade" <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't seek for ultimate parallel language I just wanna match
> Erlang, Mozart and termite/scheme.
Scheme is a Lisp, right? Port termite to CL. I bet somebody out
there has an automatic tool for this -- if you have a CL continuations
library then you can probably do the whole thing automatically, no?
mfh
> > Is there any language that is an improvement on Lisp because its old,
>
> The only area where lisp needs improvements is concurrent
> programming,
Ah, this is a problem with many languages and is not exclusive to
Lisp. A number of CL implementations allow shared-memory multitasking
on SMP / multicore machines. If you want to use message-passing
communication, GCL has an MPI plugin that lets you write message-
passing parallel code. cl-store is an existing "pickler" (like
Python's "pickle" facility) and if you combine it with MPI you'll get
a nice general message-passing scheme.
The true "parallel Lisp" efforts are focused on language design
issues, like how to make writing parallel code easier. This is
definitely work-in-progress as no one seems to have solved the "ideal
parallel language" problem in _any_ language.
mfh
On 2007-03-26 01:32:21 +0100, ·············@gmail.com"
<············@gmail.com> said:
> The true "parallel Lisp" efforts are focused on language design
> issues, like how to make writing parallel code easier. This is
> definitely work-in-progress as no one seems to have solved the "ideal
> parallel language" problem in _any_ language.
I think it's a fairly large assumption that this problem is soluble
(not one you're necessarily making!).
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2007-03-26 01:32:21 +0100, ·············@gmail.com"
> <············@gmail.com> said:
>
>> The true "parallel Lisp" efforts are focused on language design
>> issues, like how to make writing parallel code easier. This is
>> definitely work-in-progress as no one seems to have solved the "ideal
>> parallel language" problem in _any_ language.
>
>
> I think it's a fairly large assumption that this problem is soluble...
If not, work on the problem could be suspended.
hth,kt
--
"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 Mar 26, 10:42 am, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> > I think it's a fairly large assumption that this problem is soluble...
>
> If not, work on the problem could be suspended.
But not by using WITHOUT-PREEMPTION...
Seriously: I didn't mean to imply that lack of a general solution
means that one should just abandon hope of any progress at all. I was
thinking more in terms of there being no silver bullet, since I get
the impression some people think there will be.
--tim
On Mar 25, 10:43 pm, Tim Bradshaw <····@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On 2007-03-26 01:32:21 +0100, ·············@gmail.com"
> <············@gmail.com> said:
>
> > The true "parallel Lisp" efforts are focused on language design
> > issues, like how to make writing parallel code easier. This is
> > definitely work-in-progress as no one seems to have solved the "ideal
> > parallel language" problem in _any_ language.
>
> I think it's a fairly large assumption that this problem is soluble
> (not one you're necessarily making!).
Ha! ;) Fear not, I have no such illusions ;P I'm interested in
making parallel code easier to write and debug in some quantifiable
way, because I'm someone who has to write it. Constant factor
improvements in my debugging time matter a great deal to me ;)
mfh
"Gerald" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I studied Lisp programming in BSc3 (a few years ago) but now I have no
> idea what it was about.Okay it is a logical programming
> language.However I cant even write a simple program in Lisp.What does
> one do to avoid this? Where can I get Lisp compilers?Is there any
> language that is an improvement on Lisp because its old, who uses it
> any longer?Please help to apply Lisp, I dont want it to sit idle
> somewhere in my subconscious.
Some resources:
http://www.cliki.net/
Online Tutorials for programming Common Lisp or with Common Lisp.
http://www.cliki.net/online%20tutorial
A quick guide to getting set up to learn Common Lisp, the #lisp way:
http://www.unmutual.info/startingwithcl.html
My favorite CL implementation:
http://clisp.cons.org/
"Practical Common Lisp", an introduction to Common Lisp by Peter
Seibel, available at http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ and in dead-tree
form from Apress (as of 11 April 2005).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com
http://pjb.ogamita.org
Gerald wrote:
> I studied Lisp programming in BSc3 (a few years ago) but now I have no
> idea what it was about.Okay it is a logical programming
> language.However I cant even write a simple program in Lisp.What does
> one do to avoid this? Where can I get Lisp compilers?Is there any
> language that is an improvement on Lisp because its old, who uses it
> any longer?Please help to apply Lisp, I dont want it to sit idle
> somewhere in my subconscious.
>
No, no, no, Lisp is dead, this is a nostalgia group. Or one of those
Latin deals -- we still like it and discuss it, but we sure don't use
it. Try Ruby?
kt
--
"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 Mar 25, 1:15 am, Ken Tilton <····@theoryyalgebra.com> wrote:
> No, no, no, Lisp is dead, this is a nostalgia group. Or one of those
> Latin deals -- we still like it and discuss it, but we sure don't use
> it. Try Ruby?
Hehe.
Gerald wrote:
> I studied Lisp programming in BSc3 (a few years ago) but now I have no
> idea what it was about.
It has been a good three years then, and I want to party with you.
> Okay it is a logical programming
> language.
You are looking for comp.lang.prolog
> However I cant even write a simple program in Lisp.What does
> one do to avoid this?
Nothing. Every time I try to build a lean-to with Lisp I end up with a
cathedral. Fair warning: the organ alone takes a year.
> Where can I get Lisp compilers?
Lisp is interpreted. And slow.
> Is there any
> language that is an improvement on Lisp because its old,...
Latin.
> who uses it
> any longer?
The priesthood. (And thanks for the fat pitch.)
> Please help to apply Lisp, I dont want it to sit idle
> somewhere in my subconscious.
>
On windows or linux get the ACL trial. On the Mac get the Lispworks
trial. Then buy the dead-tree version of PCL. Great quote from me on the
cover. Then write some code and come back here when you get strange
results modifying '(a b c 1 2 3 thats what Lisp has done to me).
hth,kt
--
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
> On windows or linux get the ACL trial. On the Mac get the Lispworks
> trial.
Just out of curiosity and not to bait any flames, why do you not
recommend ACL's trial for Mac? I've used ACL (admittedly, the 8.0
beta and not the trial version) on MacOS X ppc and was perfectly
satisfied.
mfh