Hi,
What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
should I start with?
On Sep 17, 6:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> should I start with?
Assuming that you want crossplatform, crossimplementation, industry
strength lisp, with rich set of libraries, large amount of open source
code, active and helpfull community, number of high-quality
implementations both free & commerciale, and a lot of books, articles
and tutorials I suggest you to choose Common Lisp.
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
For learning common lisp if you're already experienced in some other
language and you just want to get on creating applications with lisp:
1. http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ free as ebook, worth every cent
of the paper edition.
If you're new to programming or just prefer slower pace :
2. Gentle introduction to symbolic computation
http://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index.html
out of print
The other free ebooks worth looking at, some of them offer printed
editions are,
3.Succesfull Common lisp http://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
4.Loving lisp http://www.markwatson.com/opencontent/
5. COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approach http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Commonlisp/
6. Basic Lisp Techniques, http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf
Great for starters but without free online editions are:
7 Ansi Common Lisp by Paul Graham
8 Lisp by Winston & Horn might be nice too.
There's some nice videos that Franz made available free of charge from
their certification program at http://www.franz.com/services/classes/download.lhtml
So you're spoiled of choices, just download some implementation and
start lisping.
Any of the Allegro, LW, SBCL,ECL, OpenMCL, CMUCL, CormanLisp, CLISP
will do.
cheers
Slobodan
On Sep 17, 5:03 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> > should I start with?
>
> Assuming that you want crossplatform, crossimplementation, industry
> strength lisp, with rich set of libraries, large amount of open source
> code, active and helpfull community, number of high-quality
> implementations both free & commerciale, and a lot of books, articles
> and tutorials I suggest you to choose Common Lisp.
>
> > What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
>
> For learning common lisp if you're already experienced in some other
> language and you just want to get on creating applications with lisp:
> 1.http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ free as ebook, worth every cent
> of the paper edition.
>
> If you're new to programming or just prefer slower pace :
> 2. Gentle introduction to symbolic computationhttp://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index....
> out of print
>
> The other free ebooks worth looking at, some of them offer printed
> editions are,
> 3.Succesfull Common lisphttp://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
> 4.Loving lisphttp://www.markwatson.com/opencontent/
> 5. COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approachhttp://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Commonlisp/
> 6. Basic Lisp Techniques, http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf
>
> Great for starters but without free online editions are:
> 7 Ansi Common Lisp by Paul Graham
> 8 Lisp by Winston & Horn might be nice too.
>
> There's some nice videos that Franz made available free of charge from
> their certification program athttp://www.franz.com/services/classes/download.lhtml
>
> So you're spoiled of choices, just download some implementation and
> start lisping.
> Any of the Allegro, LW, SBCL,ECL, OpenMCL, CMUCL, CormanLisp, CLISP
> will do.
>
> cheers
> Slobodan
And watch out how you ask questions: Humbly, with proof of hard
effort, and
without grandiose and pompous statements. Otherwise you may suffer
some
painful replies.
When processing replies to your question, be prepared to filter out
some
of the posts, and you will be richly rewarded with answers from this
group.
And even the gremlins will come around, and you will find wisdom in
their
comments.
Mirko (guilty as charged of offenses mentioned above)
·············@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:03 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 17, 6:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>
>>>Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
>>>should I start with?
>>
>>Assuming that you want crossplatform, crossimplementation, industry
>>strength lisp, with rich set of libraries, large amount of open source
>>code, active and helpfull community, number of high-quality
>>implementations both free & commerciale, and a lot of books, articles
>>and tutorials I suggest you to choose Common Lisp.
>>
>>
>>>What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
>>
>>For learning common lisp if you're already experienced in some other
>>language and you just want to get on creating applications with lisp:
>>1.http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ free as ebook, worth every cent
>>of the paper edition.
>>
>>If you're new to programming or just prefer slower pace :
>>2. Gentle introduction to symbolic computationhttp://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index....
>>out of print
>>
>>The other free ebooks worth looking at, some of them offer printed
>>editions are,
>>3.Succesfull Common lisphttp://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
>>4.Loving lisphttp://www.markwatson.com/opencontent/
>>5. COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approachhttp://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Commonlisp/
>>6. Basic Lisp Techniques, http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf
>>
>>Great for starters but without free online editions are:
>>7 Ansi Common Lisp by Paul Graham
>>8 Lisp by Winston & Horn might be nice too.
>>
>>There's some nice videos that Franz made available free of charge from
>>their certification program athttp://www.franz.com/services/classes/download.lhtml
>>
>>So you're spoiled of choices, just download some implementation and
>>start lisping.
>>Any of the Allegro, LW, SBCL,ECL, OpenMCL, CMUCL, CormanLisp, CLISP
>>will do.
>>
>>cheers
>>Slobodan
>
>
> And watch out how you ask questions: Humbly, with proof of hard
> effort, and
> without grandiose and pompous statements. Otherwise you may suffer
> some
> painful replies.
Oh, spare us the newby-hugging. Just sickening. I suppose you are
working on a line of Hallmark welcome to Lisp cards. Back in the day
that all-caps LISP would have cost the OP his life, now I have to endure
this watch out for the meanies crap. We're getting soft, I say, and this
newby infestation is the price we have to pay.
Damn PG and his LISP advocacy, damn him!
kenny (downloading F# now)
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut
On Sep 17, 10:08 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> ·············@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 5:03 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 17, 6:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Hi,
>
> >>>Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> >>>should I start with?
>
> >>Assuming that you want crossplatform, crossimplementation, industry
> >>strength lisp, with rich set of libraries, large amount of open source
> >>code, active and helpfull community, number of high-quality
> >>implementations both free & commerciale, and a lot of books, articles
> >>and tutorials I suggest you to choose Common Lisp.
>
> >>>What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
>
> >>For learning common lisp if you're already experienced in some other
> >>language and you just want to get on creating applications with lisp:
> >>1.http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ free as ebook, worth every cent
> >>of the paper edition.
>
> >>If you're new to programming or just prefer slower pace :
> >>2. Gentle introduction to symbolic computationhttp://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index....
> >>out of print
>
> >>The other free ebooks worth looking at, some of them offer printed
> >>editions are,
> >>3.Succesfull Common lisphttp://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
> >>4.Loving lisphttp://www.markwatson.com/opencontent/
> >>5. COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approachhttp://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Commonlisp/
> >>6. Basic Lisp Techniques, http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf
>
> >>Great for starters but without free online editions are:
> >>7 Ansi Common Lisp by Paul Graham
> >>8 Lisp by Winston & Horn might be nice too.
>
> >>There's some nice videos that Franz made available free of charge from
> >>their certification program athttp://www.franz.com/services/classes/download.lhtml
>
> >>So you're spoiled of choices, just download some implementation and
> >>start lisping.
> >>Any of the Allegro, LW, SBCL,ECL, OpenMCL, CMUCL, CormanLisp, CLISP
> >>will do.
>
> >>cheers
> >>Slobodan
>
> > And watch out how you ask questions: Humbly, with proof of hard
> > effort, and
> > without grandiose and pompous statements. Otherwise you may suffer
> > some
> > painful replies.
>
> Oh, spare us the newby-hugging. Just sickening. I suppose you are
> working on a line of Hallmark welcome to Lisp cards. Back in the day
> that all-caps LISP would have cost the OP his life, now I have to endure
> this watch out for the meanies crap. We're getting soft, I say, and this
> newby infestation is the price we have to pay.
>
> Damn PG and his LISP advocacy, damn him!
>
> kenny (downloading F# now)
>
> --http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
>
> "We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut
See, I again made the same mistake: I wrote a grandiose and pompous
post.
One day I will learn.
But really, the group is great (including Ken), as is the
Practical Common Lisp book. Hang in there.
Mirko
·············@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 17, 10:08 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>·············@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 17, 5:03 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sep 17, 6:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>
>>>>>Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
>>>>>should I start with?
>>
>>>>Assuming that you want crossplatform, crossimplementation, industry
>>>>strength lisp, with rich set of libraries, large amount of open source
>>>>code, active and helpfull community, number of high-quality
>>>>implementations both free & commerciale, and a lot of books, articles
>>>>and tutorials I suggest you to choose Common Lisp.
>>
>>>>>What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
>>
>>>>For learning common lisp if you're already experienced in some other
>>>>language and you just want to get on creating applications with lisp:
>>>>1.http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ free as ebook, worth every cent
>>>>of the paper edition.
>>
>>>>If you're new to programming or just prefer slower pace :
>>>>2. Gentle introduction to symbolic computationhttp://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index.....
>>>>out of print
>>
>>>>The other free ebooks worth looking at, some of them offer printed
>>>>editions are,
>>>>3.Succesfull Common lisphttp://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
>>>>4.Loving lisphttp://www.markwatson.com/opencontent/
>>>>5. COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approachhttp://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Commonlisp/
>>>>6. Basic Lisp Techniques, http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf
>>
>>>>Great for starters but without free online editions are:
>>>>7 Ansi Common Lisp by Paul Graham
>>>>8 Lisp by Winston & Horn might be nice too.
>>
>>>>There's some nice videos that Franz made available free of charge from
>>>>their certification program athttp://www.franz.com/services/classes/download.lhtml
>>
>>>>So you're spoiled of choices, just download some implementation and
>>>>start lisping.
>>>>Any of the Allegro, LW, SBCL,ECL, OpenMCL, CMUCL, CormanLisp, CLISP
>>>>will do.
>>
>>>>cheers
>>>>Slobodan
>>
>>>And watch out how you ask questions: Humbly, with proof of hard
>>>effort, and
>>>without grandiose and pompous statements. Otherwise you may suffer
>>>some
>>>painful replies.
>>
>>Oh, spare us the newby-hugging. Just sickening. I suppose you are
>>working on a line of Hallmark welcome to Lisp cards. Back in the day
>>that all-caps LISP would have cost the OP his life, now I have to endure
>>this watch out for the meanies crap. We're getting soft, I say, and this
>>newby infestation is the price we have to pay.
>>
>>Damn PG and his LISP advocacy, damn him!
>>
>>kenny (downloading F# now)
>>
>>--http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
>>
>>"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut
>
>
> See, I again made the same mistake: I wrote a grandiose and pompous
> post.
>
> One day I will learn.
>
> But really, the group is great (including Ken), as is the
> Practical Common Lisp book. Hang in there.
I'm gonna hurl. Come on, everyone, newsgroup hug....
<sigh>
kenny
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut
On Sep 17, 12:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
> Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> should I start with?
There are a few flavors of Lisp out there, as well as a (very old) OO
system called Flavors. I think you can safely disregard all Lisps that
are not either Common Lisp or Scheme. If you are just trying to learn,
almost any CL or Scheme will work, but you will want to decide on one.
If you decide on Scheme, there is another newsgroup for that.
Everything I recommend from here on is for Common Lisp, rather than
Scheme.
You don't mention your platform, so I will assume you use Windows. If
that is the case, and you just want to learn, I strongly suggest that
you get the Personal Edition of Lispworks and add Edi Weitz's starter-
pack. Lispworks has a personal edition you can download and install
easily... the starter pack is easy to install as well, and provides
many useful libraries. I imagine you can find both with a search
engine, along with instructions.
That should let you play around with Lisp- if you are dedicated to
"free" software, I wish you luck. I could tell you how to arrange a
"free" setup, but then I'd have to kill myself.
··········@aol.com escribi�:
> On Sep 17, 12:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> That should let you play around with Lisp- if you are dedicated to
> "free" software, I wish you luck. I could tell you how to arrange a
> "free" setup, but then I'd have to kill myself.
But if he is using Debian or Ubuntu we can teach him how to setup
emacs/slime/sbcl with no casualties to regret. :)
Leandro
On Sep 17, 9:20 am, Leandro Rios <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> ··········@aol.com escribi�:
>
> > On Sep 17, 12:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > That should let you play around with Lisp- if you are dedicated to
> > "free" software, I wish you luck. I could tell you how to arrange a
> > "free" setup, but then I'd have to kill myself.
>
> But if he is using Debian or Ubuntu we can teach him how to setup
> emacs/slime/sbcl with no casualties to regret. :)
>
> Leandro
Actually I do use Ubuntu but I have a windows workstation lying around
if it will be easier to use. And thanks all for the replies....:)
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:46:37 -0700, Sato <······@gmail.com> tried to confuse
everyone with this message:
>On Sep 17, 9:20 am, Leandro Rios <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ··········@aol.com escribi=F3:
>>
>> > On Sep 17, 12:08 am, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> > That should let you play around with Lisp- if you are dedicated to
>> > "free" software, I wish you luck. I could tell you how to arrange a
>> > "free" setup, but then I'd have to kill myself.
>>
>> But if he is using Debian or Ubuntu we can teach him how to setup
>> emacs/slime/sbcl with no casualties to regret. :)
>>
>> Leandro
>
>Actually I do use Ubuntu but I have a windows workstation lying around
>if it will be easier to use. And thanks all for the replies....:)
>
No, Ubuntu is far easier to setup Lisp on. And some libraries are easier
Linux too. I tried in vain to make Drakma work with Windows/CLISP, yet
with Ubuntu CLISP it worked straight away (well, almost. had to ditch SSL
support). So, if you have no money to buy Lispworks, stick with your Linux
box.
--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:55:40 GMT, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
> So, if you have no money to buy Lispworks, stick with your Linux
> box.
If he wants to /learn/ Lisp (see subject), there's no need for him to
buy LispWorks. He can happily use the Personal Edition for free.
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:55:40 GMT, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
> I tried in vain to make Drakma work with Windows/CLISP
What was the problem? (Please redirect to mailing list.)
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Klaus Schilling
Subject: Re: Learning LISP from scratch
Date:
Message-ID: <87vea9akqw.fsf@web.de>
Sato <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
the collected works of Paul Graham
Klaus Schilling
Klaus Schilling <···············@web.de> wrote:
> Sato <······@gmail.com> writes:
>> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
>
> the collected works of Paul Graham
Reading how to be a cool developer and dreaming about rich? This
doesn't help learning a programming language.
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
P� Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:29:26 +0200, skrev Stefan Scholl
<······@no-spoon.de>:
> Klaus Schilling <···············@web.de> wrote:
>> Sato <······@gmail.com> writes:
>>> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
>>
>> the collected works of Paul Graham
>
> Reading how to be a cool developer and dreaming about rich? This
> doesn't help learning a programming language.
>
>
He's probaly refering to "ANSI Common Lisp" and "On Lisp".
In article <·················@pandora.upc.no>,
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> P� Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:29:26 +0200, skrev Stefan Scholl
> <······@no-spoon.de>:
>
> > Klaus Schilling <···············@web.de> wrote:
> >> Sato <······@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
> >>
> >> the collected works of Paul Graham
> >
> > Reading how to be a cool developer and dreaming about rich? This
> > doesn't help learning a programming language.
> >
> >
>
> He's probaly refering to "ANSI Common Lisp" and "On Lisp".
On Lisp is certainly useful.
If you want to learn object-oriented programming in Common Lisp,
you need still another book.
Peter Seibel's book is a better introduction and has more
example code. CLHS is the better reference.
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> On Lisp is certainly useful.
And out of print.
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
+ Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de>:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
>> On Lisp is certainly useful.
>
> And out of print.
But available on the web. At least I have a pdf of it, and I'm pretty
sure I didn't steal it. I don't think it's appropriate for a
beginner, though. Unless it is a very sophisticated beginner.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
In article <······················@parsec.no-spoon.de>,
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> > On Lisp is certainly useful.
>
> And out of print.
Download it for free:
http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Stefan Scholl wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
>> On Lisp is certainly useful.
>
> And out of print.
There's always the possibility that APress will republish it, though
such plans fell through back in 2004... For the impatient, there are
ways of cropping the online version and getting that bound instead.
D Herring <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
> Stefan Scholl wrote:
>> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
>>> On Lisp is certainly useful.
>>
>> And out of print.
>
> There's always the possibility that APress will republish it, though
Like printing "The ANSI Common Lisp Reference Book"? :-)
(Current release date on Amazon.de is 2008-02-11 :-)
> such plans fell through back in 2004... For the impatient, there are
> ways of cropping the online version and getting that bound instead.
Or buy it for EUR 483.45 :-)
(Amazon marketplace)
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> writes:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
>> Peter Seibel's book is a better introduction
>
> I disagree.
having read both, I'm interested in why you think PG's On Lisp is a better
introduction than PS' Practical Common Lisp?
I started On Lisp first and read a good half of it before I started
PCL. After PCL, I returned to On Lisp and have to say I got a hell of a lot
more out of it than I was getting prior to reading PCL. In fact, I returned
to the start and re-read the half I had already done and I felt lots of the
more subtle points in PGs arguements then made a lot more sense.
My personal feeling is that if you have no prior experience with lisp based
languages at all, then Practecal Common Lisp is a really good introduction
because it shows you the basics in a context that many readers will
appreciate. Many other texts, including On Lisp, tend to show the language
in a more abstract environment - more similar to the texts I remember from
student days with simple examples of using the language to solve
'traditional' computing science problems. While I think using such an
approach is essential for demonstrating language features and power, I
think its also very important to have something which shows what can be
done with the language to solve the types of problems that people want to
address now. This is even more important with CL because many peple have
become use to using languages which have extensive APIs to do much of the
work in solving current practical problems. To some extent, I think PCL
shows why CL is still relevant despite not having the extensive APIs of
java, perl, ruby, python etc because it shows you how easily you can use it
to solve practical problems without extensive library APIs.
My recommendation is to do Practical Common Lisp first, followed by On
Lisp and then if still keen, start studying some CL source code and use the
Hyperspec to look up things you come across that you don't understand or
want to know more about.
the other important (probably the most important) thing to do is actually
start using the language. Reading is great, but its only when you try to
apply what you have read that you will really understand how much you were
able to comprehend what you read and where you still have gaps in your
knowledge.
Tim
P.S. for context, my programming evolution has been
Basic (late 70's TRS-80)
Fortran (Early 80s PDP-11, DEC-20)
Pascl/x86 Assembly (late 80's PC)
C (early 90's Ultrix)
C++, Prolog (mid 90's Dec alpha, Linux)
Tcl, Java (Late 90s, Dec Alpha, Sun Solaris and Linux)
Perl, elisp (end 90's beginning 2k, Linux)
PL/SQL (2001, Dec/compaq/HP Alpha, Linux)
somewhat disalusioned at this point.....
Brief investigation of Scheme and Python - didn't like them)
CL (2004, Linux)
Ruby (2006, Linux)
The languages I've enjoyed using the most have been C, Prolog, Lisp and
ruby. The languages I've disliked the most have been C++, Java and Python.
The languages I don't mind using are Tcl and Perl. The others I'm pretty
indifferent about. The languages which i believe had the best positive
impact on my programming were Assembler, C, Prolog and Lisp.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> having read both, I'm interested in why you think PG's On Lisp is a better
> introduction than PS' Practical Common Lisp?
I think there's a misunderstanding; I didn't compare "PCL" to "On Lisp"
but to Graham's "ANSI Common Lisp".
To keep it short, I don't like the style of PCL, and I don't quite like
the choice of content. There's too much loose chattering going on,
sometimes it feels a bit carelessly done[1], and imho it's not very good
from a didactical point of view. Graham's book is much better here, imho.
[1] Symbols named "foo"? In a book? Come on, if you're going through the
effort to make a book which ought to sell, you should invest some more
time into making good examples, rather than ones which look like they
come straight from a Usenet posting.
In article <··············@mid.dfncis.de>,
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> wrote:
> Tim X wrote:
>
> > having read both, I'm interested in why you think PG's On Lisp is a better
> > introduction than PS' Practical Common Lisp?
>
> I think there's a misunderstanding; I didn't compare "PCL" to "On Lisp"
> but to Graham's "ANSI Common Lisp".
> To keep it short, I don't like the style of PCL, and I don't quite like
> the choice of content. There's too much loose chattering going on,
> sometimes it feels a bit carelessly done[1], and imho it's not very good
> from a didactical point of view. Graham's book is much better here, imho.
>
>
> [1] Symbols named "foo"? In a book? Come on, if you're going through the
> effort to make a book which ought to sell, you should invest some more
> time into making good examples, rather than ones which look like they
> come straight from a Usenet posting.
Graham's book 'ANSI CL' has very few interesting examples. The longer examples are
not very convincing. The reference provides
no real value. He ignores CLOS mostly (Paul Graham dislikes
OO). Unfortunately many Common Lisp users think different and
there is a heavy use of CLOS in the community. The book
won't help you to understand the libraries. He gives little information
beyond the language (about what to use why).
His book 'On Lisp' is much more useful, but I don't even consult
that book.
For a beginner I would recommend three different starting points:
* learn about Symbolic Programming for example with
Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation by
David S. Touretzky
Download here:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/index.html
* learn with some GOFAI (Good old-fashioned AI) examples
with Winston&Horn, Lisp, 3rd Edition
* or with more modern practical examples with
Peter Seibel's book Practical Common Lisp.
Well, 'modern'. Stuff like describing binary
data is very similar done on the Lisp Machine
in the eighties for example to describe data
formats for RPC (Remote Proceduce Call).
Then
* who wants to see longer examples should look at Peter Norvig's
book "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming'.
Again, little CLOS usage.
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> * who wants to see longer examples should look at Peter Norvig's
> book "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming'.
> Again, little CLOS usage.
I agree, that's a pretty good one.
From: Klaus Schilling
Subject: Re: Learning LISP from scratch
Date:
Message-ID: <874phrk5be.fsf@web.de>
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
>
> no real value. He ignores CLOS mostly (Paul Graham dislikes
> OO).
OO ist boldly overrated and hardly worth the trouble.
Most work can be done much easier with closures and tables.
One may really neglect CLOS except as an example for demonstrating
how CL's maccro systems encompasses a wide variety of diverging
programming paradigms.
> Unfortunately many Common Lisp users think different and
> there is a heavy use of CLOS in the community.
completely unjustified
Klaus Schilling
In article <··············@web.de>,
Klaus Schilling <···············@web.de> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> >
> > no real value. He ignores CLOS mostly (Paul Graham dislikes
> > OO).
>
>
> OO ist boldly overrated and hardly worth the trouble.
> Most work can be done much easier with closures and tables.
Too complicated. Use 'case' statements.
> One may really neglect CLOS except as an example for demonstrating
> how CL's maccro systems encompasses a wide variety of diverging
> programming paradigms.
>
> > Unfortunately many Common Lisp users think different and
> > there is a heavy use of CLOS in the community.
>
> completely unjustified
Did you ever develop any Lisp software above ten thousand lines?
>
> Klaus Schilling
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Klaus Schilling wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
>> no real value. He ignores CLOS mostly (Paul Graham dislikes
>> OO).
>
>
> OO ist boldly overrated and hardly worth the trouble.
> Most work can be done much easier with closures and tables.
> One may really neglect CLOS except as an example for demonstrating
> how CL's maccro systems encompasses a wide variety of diverging
> programming paradigms.
You're right about OO, but you're wrong about CLOS.
CLOS is primarily about generic functions, not so much about objects.
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/
In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Klaus Schilling wrote:
> > Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> >> no real value. He ignores CLOS mostly (Paul Graham dislikes
> >> OO).
> >
> >
> > OO ist boldly overrated and hardly worth the trouble.
> > Most work can be done much easier with closures and tables.
> > One may really neglect CLOS except as an example for demonstrating
> > how CL's maccro systems encompasses a wide variety of diverging
> > programming paradigms.
>
> You're right about OO, but you're wrong about CLOS.
>
> CLOS is primarily about generic functions, not so much about objects.
Nah, I don't buy that.
>
>
> Pascal
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
>> Klaus Schilling wrote:
>>> OO ist boldly overrated and hardly worth the trouble.
>>> Most work can be done much easier with closures and tables.
>>> One may really neglect CLOS except as an example for demonstrating
>>> how CL's maccro systems encompasses a wide variety of diverging
>>> programming paradigms.
>> You're right about OO, but you're wrong about CLOS.
>>
>> CLOS is primarily about generic functions, not so much about objects.
>
> Nah, I don't buy that.
I don't know enough about your background, so this is pure speculation,
but there is a chance that you're not aware of how much you're
influenced by the functional approach taken in CLOS, and how much plain
OO programmers differ in their view on things in languages like
Smalltalk and Java.
Every now and then, I am still hacking small examples in Java, and I
noticed that my approach is now very different compared to my "pure" OO
days, based on the Lisp influence I have been exposed to in the meantime.
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/
In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > In article <··············@mid.individual.net>,
> > Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Klaus Schilling wrote:
> >>> OO ist boldly overrated and hardly worth the trouble.
> >>> Most work can be done much easier with closures and tables.
> >>> One may really neglect CLOS except as an example for demonstrating
> >>> how CL's maccro systems encompasses a wide variety of diverging
> >>> programming paradigms.
> >> You're right about OO, but you're wrong about CLOS.
> >>
> >> CLOS is primarily about generic functions, not so much about objects.
> >
> > Nah, I don't buy that.
>
> I don't know enough about your background, so this is pure speculation,
> but there is a chance that you're not aware of how much you're
> influenced by the functional approach taken in CLOS, and how much plain
> OO programmers differ in their view on things in languages like
> Smalltalk and Java.
I have used all kinds of OO over the years. Before CLOS
there was Flavors (which I never used that much), then New Flavors
and things like KEE Units, Fresko, Frames in Babylon
and Object Lisp. Then some more... I'm not so bound to
the 'Objects that are sending messages and are organized in Classes'
model of OO.
For the software archeologists: there is an old book
with a description of Fresko:
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/xps/plakon1991.html
Plakon was a Lisp-written toolbox for planning and
configuration applications.
Plakon was then supersed by Konwerk.
http://www.hitec-hh.de/ueberuns/home/aguenter/literatur/konwerk.pdf
OO was never 'pure' for me. The purer versions of OO are the
Actor models. There objects are active in parallel with
message queues. Classes are not necessary.
CLOS is for me Objects with Slots + Classes + Generic Functions and
implemented in CLOS. Bonus: Generic Functions are objects, too.
It is kind of first class version of 'messages'.
It is a bit verbose and lacks some stuff,
but that can be added (like relations, multi-value slots,
facets, ...) via the MOP.
>
> Every now and then, I am still hacking small examples in Java, and I
> noticed that my approach is now very different compared to my "pure" OO
> days, based on the Lisp influence I have been exposed to in the meantime.
Yes, I can imagine that.
>
>
> Pascal
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> For a beginner I would recommend three different starting points:
>
> * learn about Symbolic Programming for example with
> Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation by
> David S. Touretzky
>
> Download here:
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/index.html
Being a long time Lisp fanatic, but I beginner writing real code, I can
not praise this book enough. Start there! It will suddenly all make
sense. Then read PCL and write code. At least it worked for me. :)
/Andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> For a beginner I would recommend three different starting points:
>
> * learn about Symbolic Programming for example with
> Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation by
> David S. Touretzky
>
> Download here:
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/index.html
Being a long time Lisp fanatic, but I beginner writing real code, I can
not praise this book enough. Start there! It will suddenly all make
sense. Then read PCL and write code. At least it worked for me. :)
/Andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:58:19 +1000, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> My recommendation is to do Practical Common Lisp first, followed by On
> Lisp and then if still keen, start studying some CL source code and
> use the Hyperspec to look up things you come across that you don't
> understand or want to know more about.
That's actually a fairly good suggestion. Couple the statement ``learn
to read the source code of Lisp programs'' with ``write a fair amount of
"throwaway" experimental stuff, to get acquainted with the language'',
and it looks rather promising :-)
When new people arrive at work, and they want to experiment with
Perforce (the source code management system we have to use for
officially `sanctioned' work projects), one of the first things I hand
over a nice, printed tutorial of 20 pages, and point them at a local
installation of the Perforce server, saying:
``This server can be used to play with Perforce commands, commit
stuff, branch it, create artificial conflicts, resolve them, and in
general do pretty much whatever you want. It takes 2 minutes to
wipe it out and reinstall it from a backup copy, so please feel free
to do whatever you want, and stop worrying about "breaking it" or
anything similar''.
I'm a very firm believer in the old adage of Aristotle, from Ethica
Nicomachea:
``What we have to learn do to, we learn by doing.''
On 18 Sep, 06:58, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>
> The languages I've enjoyed using the most have been C, Prolog, Lisp and
> ruby. The languages I've disliked the most have been C++, Java and Python.
> The languages I don't mind using are Tcl and Perl. The others I'm pretty
> indifferent about. The languages which i believe had the best positive
> impact on my programming were Assembler, C, Prolog and Lisp.
>
> --
> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Of the languages you don't dislike, which do you use for which
purposes?
are <·········@gmx.net> writes:
> On 18 Sep, 06:58, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>>
>> The languages I've enjoyed using the most have been C, Prolog, Lisp and
>> ruby. The languages I've disliked the most have been C++, Java and Python.
>> The languages I don't mind using are Tcl and Perl. The others I'm pretty
>> indifferent about. The languages which i believe had the best positive
>> impact on my programming were Assembler, C, Prolog and Lisp.
>>
>> --
>> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>
> Of the languages you don't dislike, which do you use for which
> purposes?
>
For work it use to be C. Now its mainly ruby, Perl and PL/SQL. Sometimes
I'm forced to do some Java (maintenance work mainly).
Prolog was used for the research in my thesis.
Cl and Emacs Lisp is what I use for fun and my personal 'toolbox' and
managing my environment. For example, I have some CL that I use for
generating SQL scripts to create/maintain databases (Oracle, SQL Server,
MySQL and Postgres). I have a CL based RSS reader which uses the
cl-speech-dispatcher package to read the RSS feed outloud (allowing me to
do other things while I'm listening to the RSS feeds I like to
monitor. I've got a number of CL based scripts that do some analysis and
reports on a database - very handy when starting to work with a database
you don't know (especially true with Oracle).
I also use CL to experiment a lot. Often, when starting a new project for
work, I'll spend a few days doing a basic prototype in CL. I can then show
the users what I've got and we can refine things further. (a lot of my work
involves writing tools, libraries etc that are used by my collegues, so
most of my clients are other staff members). Unfortunately, there is too
much FUD around lisp to convince management that we should at least use CL
sometimes for our back-of-house stuff. This means that once I've got the
prototype done, I have to re-implement in some other language. This was
often Perl, but lately I've been able to convince people to let me do it in
ruby. CL has been great fo this because of its interactive development
model. As these are only prototypes, I don't have to worry about interfaces
so much as show basic process and I find a few days experimentation in CL
often highlights issues I'd not considered. Being able to examine these
issues and discuss implications with the end users makes the final
implementation in some other language much faster and we usually end up
with a cleaner design/implementation, which makes maintenance a lot
easier.
I've not done any assembly programming for about 20 years. I enjoyed it,
but don't think I'd like to work in it every day - it tends to take a lot
of assembly before you have anything real to show.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Klaus Schilling wrote:
> Sato <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
>
> the collected works of Paul Graham
You'll definitely want to keep a few things in mind if/when you get to
_ANSI Common Lisp_, though. From <http://bc.tech.coop/blog/040517.html>:
<blockquote>
So, what are the areas where Chris feels that Paul Graham's CL coding
style is not "typical"? Here are some of them:
+ Strong preference for if rather than cond, even when using if leads to
nested if's or embedded progn's.
+ Strong distaste for loop, because it is so complex and different from
the functional programming style. Sometimes, however, loop is the
clearest simplest way to write something.
+ Preference for recursion over iteration, even if it might lead to code
that causes stack overflows on very long lists.
The nice thing about reading Chris's annotations is that he provides a
commentary (expansions, disagreements, challenges) on various items in
the book. This helps to point out where alternative views (to Paul's)
might exist.
</blockquote>
Personally, it took me a bit of time to realize that many of the things
to PG advocates in this book are not things with which many Common
Lispniks would agree.
> <blockquote>
> So, what are the areas where Chris feels that Paul Graham's CL coding
> style is not "typical"? Here are some of them:
>
> + Strong preference for if rather than cond, even when using if leads to
> nested if's or embedded progn's.
>
> + Strong distaste for loop, because it is so complex and different from
> the functional programming style. Sometimes, however, loop is the
> clearest simplest way to write something.
>
> + Preference for recursion over iteration, even if it might lead to code
> that causes stack overflows on very long lists.
Hmmm. I find that my own code shares at least the last two of these
style points.
It's probably because my first lisp was R4 Scheme. Expressing
iteration as recursion is so natural, for me anyway, that I've not
felt a pressing need to learn looping constructs. But that means
I'm relying on the lisp system being smart enough to sort out tail
recursion and not blow the stack. Which, now that ya mention it,
I probably shouldn't in dialects that aren't Scheme.
Bear
>> So, what are the areas where Chris feels that Paul Graham's CL coding
>> style is not "typical"? Here are some of them:
>>
>> + Strong preference for if rather than cond, even when using if leads
>> to nested if's or embedded progn's.
cond is not a substitute for if it is a substitute for else-if, which
Lisp does not have. end of argument.
>>
>> + Strong distaste for loop, because it is so complex and different
>> from the functional programming style. Sometimes, however, loop is the
>> clearest simplest way to write something.
That might be a message from God. The message? Hello? DSL?
It is ironic to see advocates of a language obsessed with its power to
create DSLs rejecting a DSL for iteration.
>>
>> + Preference for recursion over iteration, even if it might lead to
>> code that causes stack overflows on very long lists.
Preference schmefernce. The problem requires recursion or it does not.
If not, recursion is a mistake, not a preference. But it is always fun.
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk
from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets."."
- Bob Uecker
On Oct 23, 8:57 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> So, what are the areas where Chris feels that Paul Graham's CL coding
> >> style is not "typical"? Here are some of them:
>
> >> + Strong preference for if rather than cond, even when using if leads
> >> to nested if's or embedded progn's.
>
> cond is not a substitute for if it is a substitute for else-if, which
> Lisp does not have. end of argument.
Of course Lisp has else-if. It's called COND. Doh!
Oh shit, sorry. Didn't see the EOA there.
Nevermind.
On Oct 23, 8:57 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> It is ironic to see advocates of a language obsessed with its power to
> create DSLs rejecting a DSL for iteration.
That would be like paying lip service to free speech, while praying
that certain people shut up. Unthinkable hypocrisy! :)
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On Oct 23, 8:57 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It is ironic to see advocates of a language obsessed with its power to
>>create DSLs rejecting a DSL for iteration.
>
>
> That would be like paying lip service to free speech, while praying
> that certain people shut up. Unthinkable hypocrisy! :)
>
You Americans keep going on about freedom of speech... the problem is
you have freedom of thought, you don't use that.*
kt
* blatant plagiarism.
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk
from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets."."
- Bob Uecker
On Sep 26, 5:23 pm, Damien Kick <·····@earthlink.net> wrote:
> + Strong preference for if rather than cond, even when using if leads to
> nested if's or embedded progn's.
no arguing there. cond is the king of conditionals! :)
> + Strong distaste for loop, because it is so complex and different from
> the functional programming style. Sometimes, however, loop is the
> clearest simplest way to write something.
>
> + Preference for recursion over iteration, even if it might lead to code
> that causes stack overflows on very long lists.
these last 2 points make up for an interesting observation: PG is
perhaps the Schemiest of all Common Lispers... ;)
BTW, if you're wishing to learn a Lisp, grab the shiny DrScheme
environment:
http://drscheme.org/
it also comes packed full of good documentation, including the rather
nice How to design programs textbook, also available online. Then,
search Google for SICP and The Little Schemer...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:55:08 -0000, namekuseijin wrote:
> BTW, if you're wishing to learn a Lisp, grab the shiny DrScheme
> environment:
> http://drscheme.org/
And then what? Implement Lisp in Scheme? Might be a good exercise,
if that's the sort of thing you like, but it's hardly the best way to
learn Lisp...
--
I'm sure the above forms some sort of argument in this debate, but I'm not
sure whether it's for or against.
-- Boris Schaefer
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
On Oct 26, 9:44 pm, Paul Foley <····@below.invalid> (http://
public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> And then what? Implement Lisp in Scheme?
that would be redundant.
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:55:08 -0000, namekuseijin wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, if you're wishing to learn a Lisp, grab the shiny DrScheme
>>environment:
>>http://drscheme.org/
>
>
> And then what? Implement Lisp in Scheme? Might be a good exercise,
> if that's the sort of thing you like, but it's hardly the best way to
> learn Lisp...
>
You forget, perhaps, that Common Lisp is not the only Lisp.
Note the use of the indefinite article "a" in the text to
which you replied, and think about what language family
encompasses both Scheme and Common Lisp.
Bear
+ Sato <······@gmail.com>:
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
> Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> should I start with?
Assuming Common Lisp (which, incidentally, this newsgroup is mostly
about):
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
And buy the paper edition if you like what you see.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
On 17 Sep, 05:08, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
> Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> should I start with?
http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/lisp/LispTutorial.html
On Sep 16, 11:08 pm, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
> Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> should I start with?
Are you already familiar with functional programming? If you are not,
then start with _The_Little_Schemer_. You can use Common Lisp to go
through the examples, as the Common Lisp equivalent is always given in
the sidebar.
Watch the SICP videos. http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
Read SICP. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
To start choose a LISP distribution (Scheme or CL) with an excellent
mailing list and documentation.
On Sep 16, 11:08 pm, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
> Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> should I start with?
I'm doing the same thing at the moment. I installed cygwin on my
Windows XP box and used clisp from there which seems okay. I thing
the Turetsky book is fine and I'm also using Lisp 3rd Edition by
Winston and Horn which is a little deeper.
Allan
Hi Sato!
I just started doing the same thing about a week ago and progressed
from 'Hello, World!' to something that helps me with remote editing.
I chose Steele Bank Common Lisp as my implementation because it had
the freshest feel of the lot.
-- Installation Help --
I just downloaded and expanded the SBCL i86 linux binaries it to
some directory in my home dir and symlinked the sbcl executale to ~/bin.
-- Hello, World! --
A way to create a small "Hello, World!" executable.
-> http://ww.telent.net/lisp/according_to/hello-world.html
-- IDE ---
Not following the advice of those more experienced than me, I
chose to stick with gedit for now. One way to run simple
applications with SBCL is to do
sbcl --noprint --userinit file.lisp
An alternative is to use the usual Emacs IDE.
-> http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
-> "2. Lather, Rinse Repeat"
-- Great Language Introduction --
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/acl2.txt
-- Great Language Reference --
-> http://snipurl.com/lispref
-- Further Language Reading --
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
-- Programming Style and Technique --
http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisptext.html
Of course there's always more, but this was enough
to get me started fairly well.
Also, please feel free to ask me, this stuff is still fresh in my mind.
Carlo
Sato wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learning lisp.
> Also I noticed there are several flavors of LISP out there...which
> should I start with?
>
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:55:00 +0200, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> Not following the advice of those more experienced than me, I chose
> to stick with gedit for now. One way to run simple applications with
> SBCL is to do
>
> sbcl --noprint --userinit file.lisp
That's certainly very bad advice. If you'll stick with Lisp for some
more time, you'll hopefully find out for yourself that the only
reasonable way to develop in Lisp is to stay within the image and to
use a good IDE to interact with it.
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
>> sbcl --noprint --userinit file.lisp
> That's certainly very bad advice. If you'll stick with Lisp for some
> more time, you'll hopefully find out for yourself that the only
> reasonable way to develop in Lisp is to stay within the image and to
> use a good IDE to interact with it.
I think it's actually good advice, given the purpose of it is to
simply enable to do something (anything!) useful with Lisp as
quickly as possible.
Carlo
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:57:22 +0200, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> I think it's actually good advice, given the purpose of it is to
> simply enable to do something (anything!) useful with Lisp as
> quickly as possible.
Nope, it's not.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:05:36 +0200, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
>> Nope, it's not.
>
> For me, it is.
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
* (+ "http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm" (reasoning
:good t))
"New to a language, it would be nice to explore it from a familiar
environment, free from the fears of having to join a religion just
to program.
Also, I'm used to a save-compile-run development process, and I'm
not ready to give that up just yet any more than most kids will
start diving with the ten-meter board, no matter how many pirouettes
they could do with the right skills.
Your position is likely to be sound when it comes to complex
development, but it ignores the needs of the newbie. Changing that
might result in lisp being more obviously not dead."
On Sep 18, 12:19 pm, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> * (+ "http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm" (reasoning
> :good t))
>
> "New to a language, it would be nice to explore it from a familiar
> environment, free from the fears of having to join a religion just
> to program.
>
The subject under discussion is "learning Lisp," not "learning how to
use C development tactics in a Lisp environment."
If you wish to learn Lisp, open your mind to the generosity of very
talented developers such as Edi, who are offering very good advice, if
you would heed it.
If you do not wish to learn Lisp, but only want to stay set in your
ways, perhaps you can keep that to yourself.
> The subject under discussion is "learning Lisp," not "learning how to
> use C development tactics in a Lisp environment."
If you know C development, I think it's good to use lisp like C at
first. It lets you grasp the differences gently.
> If you wish to learn Lisp, open your mind to the generosity of very
> talented developers such as Edi, who are offering very good advice, if
> you would heed it.
I still think learning Emacs at the same time as learning Lisp is
quite a mouthful to swallow, so just using a text editor seems like
a good idea to me.
> If you do not wish to learn Lisp, but only want to stay set in your
> ways, perhaps you can keep that to yourself.
What about the people who might agree with me?
On Sep 18, 2:25 pm, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> > The subject under discussion is "learning Lisp," not "learning how to
> > use C development tactics in a Lisp environment."
>
> If you know C development, I think it's good to use lisp like C at
> first. It lets you grasp the differences gently.
>
> > If you wish to learn Lisp, open your mind to the generosity of very
> > talented developers such as Edi, who are offering very good advice, if
> > you would heed it.
>
> I still think learning Emacs at the same time as learning Lisp is
> quite a mouthful to swallow, so just using a text editor seems like
> a good idea to me.
>
> > If you do not wish to learn Lisp, but only want to stay set in your
> > ways, perhaps you can keep that to yourself.
>
> What about the people who might agree with me?
There is no "gentle" transition from C to Lisp. You need to confront
early on some quite unusual features of Lisp, most prominent of which
is that symbols in Lisp are first-class objects, not just bits of text
that the compiler looks at. (Unconventional function call syntax is a
very close second.)
Unless you can get immediate feedback from the Lisp prompt, that
transition is harder, not easier.
You are better off typing to the Lisp implementation's interactive
loop from a terminal window with no assistance at all rather than
feeding .lisp files to the implementation.
> What about the people who might agree with me?
The people who agree with you would be the kind of people who want to
learn new things without having to actually think in new ways. I.e.,
blockheads unlikely to learn anything the easy way.
Carlo Capocasa wrote:
>> The subject under discussion is "learning Lisp," not "learning how to
>> use C development tactics in a Lisp environment."
>
> If you know C development, I think it's good to use lisp like C at
> first. It lets you grasp the differences gently.
>
>> If you wish to learn Lisp, open your mind to the generosity of very
>> talented developers such as Edi, who are offering very good advice, if
>> you would heed it.
>
> I still think learning Emacs at the same time as learning Lisp is
> quite a mouthful to swallow, so just using a text editor seems like
> a good idea to me.
Using a plain text editor with Lisp is a bad idea, no matter whether
you're a newbie or an expert. You need support from the editor if you
want to get the experience that you don't see the parentheses anymore.
If you don't get such support from the editor, you will end up counting
parentheses all the time. You definitely don't want that.
Emacs is not the only editor that supports editing Lisp code. Use one of
the commercial development environments. They are very good for learning
purposes, are close in their behavior to other widely available editors,
don't cost anything in their free editions, and the danger of a lock-in
is very low. There are also some other environments / editors with
support for Lisp, through plugins etc., like vi, Eclipse, and so on. You
have to google for them, though, unless someone else but me can comment
on those. (I can't.)
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/
There are also some other environments / editors with
> support for Lisp, through plugins etc., like vi, Eclipse, and so on. You
> have to google for them, though, unless someone else but me can comment
> on those. (I can't.)
For reading LISP code vim is just as good as emacs. Color coding
functions and showing matched parenthesis keep things straight and
neat. For the longest time I did all of my Python coding in vim and
stayed away from emacs. When going towards LISP *everywhere* I read
they recommended just learning emacs while programming LISP. The slime/
emacs IDE seems like a good choice, at least for me, and nothing like
it was for vim. I only had to "learn" a few new commands. Plus I used
the cocoa emacs for MacOSX and I know they have a similar gtk version
and windows version. So if you don't know the commands you can click
for them.
Just my 2 cents.
> Using a plain text editor with Lisp is a bad idea, no matter whether
> you're a newbie or an expert. You need support from the editor if you
> want to get the experience that you don't see the parentheses anymore.
> If you don't get such support from the editor, you will end up counting
> parentheses all the time. You definitely don't want that.
gEdit has bracket matching.
> Emacs is not the only editor that supports editing Lisp code. Use one of
> the commercial development environments. They are very good for learning
> purposes, are close in their behavior to other widely available editors,
> don't cost anything in their free editions, and the danger of a lock-in
> is very low. There are also some other environments / editors with
> support for Lisp, through plugins etc., like vi, Eclipse, and so on. You
> have to google for them, though, unless someone else but me can comment
> on those. (I can't.)
I can't really say why yet but I'm not using Eclipse right now on a
hunch.
In article <············@registered.motzarella.org>,
Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> > The subject under discussion is "learning Lisp," not "learning how to
> > use C development tactics in a Lisp environment."
>
> If you know C development, I think it's good to use lisp like C at
> first. It lets you grasp the differences gently.
No, part of learning Lisp is to learn the difference in
programming approaches. Interactive development with
the REPL should be easy to begin with. You don't even need an
editor. Use CLISP with the READLINE integration is
enough to get one started.
> > If you wish to learn Lisp, open your mind to the generosity of very
> > talented developers such as Edi, who are offering very good advice, if
> > you would heed it.
>
> I still think learning Emacs at the same time as learning Lisp is
> quite a mouthful to swallow, so just using a text editor seems like
> a good idea to me.
To keep things simpler, you can/should avoid Emacs. But then
use a simpler IDE like LispWorks' personal edition.
You can see the simple use of one editor and one
listener in my dsl-in-lisp movie.
http://lispm.dyndns.org/news?ID=NEWS-2005-07-08-1
The movie is here:
http://www.cl-http.org:8002/mov/dsl-in-lisp.mov
I tried to show a simple approach to Lisp development and have
avoided more advanced interaction (like using the debugger or
more advanced editor commands).
There is a LispWorks editor window on the right. It is made
vertically very large, so you can see more code.
On the left there is the LispWorks listener. Code gets
written in the editor and immediately tried in the Listener.
in the video I use copy-paste between the editor and the
listener - there better ways to do that, but as a first
approach it is fine.
LispWorks has a very useful Editor and a very useful Listener.
One can stay using both for some time without touching
the other tools. Later one will find out that there
are inspectors, steppers, divers browsers and other
tools. Usually using aan
> > If you do not wish to learn Lisp, but only want to stay set in your
> > ways, perhaps you can keep that to yourself.
>
> What about the people who might agree with me?
I agree with you on avoiding Emacs/SLIME when somebody
is not comfortable with it. But I don't agree to
fall back to batch programming.
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
> No, part of learning Lisp is to learn the difference in
> programming approaches. Interactive development with
> the REPL should be easy to begin with. You don't even need an
> editor. Use CLISP with the READLINE integration is
> enough to get one started.
> To keep things simpler, you can/should avoid Emacs. But then
> use a simpler IDE like LispWorks' personal edition.
> You can see the simple use of one editor and one
> listener in my dsl-in-lisp movie.
I am actually avoiding LispWorks not because I don't think it's
good, but because I'm a strong Open Source believer.
> I agree with you on avoiding Emacs/SLIME when somebody
> is not comfortable with it. But I don't agree to
> fall back to batch programming.
You can still test individual functions by pasting them into the prompt.
Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> writes:
>> The subject under discussion is "learning Lisp," not "learning how to
>> use C development tactics in a Lisp environment."
>
> If you know C development, I think it's good to use lisp like C at
> first. It lets you grasp the differences gently.
>
>> If you wish to learn Lisp, open your mind to the generosity of very
>> talented developers such as Edi, who are offering very good advice, if
>> you would heed it.
>
> I still think learning Emacs at the same time as learning Lisp is
> quite a mouthful to swallow, so just using a text editor seems like
> a good idea to me.
Not entering the (largely) pointless arguement, but wanted to point out
that you may have a misconception of what you have to learn to use
emacs. While emacs is very powerful and very customizable with lots of
really nice features that make working in languages like lisp very
productive, there is no requirement to learn all of these features in order
to use emacs. It simply isn't an all or nothing situation.
Emacs can be used in a very basic way very effectively and easily. It
certainly can provide the same level of interface you have with gedit and
command line interpreter as distinct separate processes. You don't *have*
to learn key bindings for inserting matching '()' or indentation or any of
the other advanced features - you can use it just like it was a dumb simple
editor. All common tasks are available from the menu bar (open file, save,
cut, copy paste etc). You can even just use it as a more sophisticated
interface to sbcl, giving you history witht he up/down arrows.
There is no denying that there is a lot of great functionality provided by
emacs and slime that can provide a really powerful development environment,
but users should not be put off by the fear of an unmanageable learning
curve. Unlike editors like VI (an editor which is very good BTW), you don't
have the somewhat alien to many, different modes. Emacs largely behaves as
people would expect an editor to behave. Once you are comfortable with the
basics, you can then begin to explore the more advanced features at your
leisure.
The final point, made by others, which should not be ignored is that using
emacs and slime can actually make learning CL easier for the beginner
because it does things like provide function completion and hints in the
min-buffer on arguments, something you don't get with a gedit/sbcl interp
combination.
Finally, there is no right/wrong answer here - it comes down to personal
taste. I know some very experienced and productive lispers that use a
combination of VI and a separate lisp process in another window. The point
I wanted to make is that you shouldn't discount emacs because of a belief
that adding it into the mix will create an overly steep learning curve -
you simply don't need to master emacs before you can benefit from the
integration it provides.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Unlike editors like VI (an editor which is very good BTW), you don't
> have the somewhat alien to many, different modes.
You know how it is, two's too many, one's not enough.
> Emacs largely behaves as people would expect an editor to behave.
Unless you try to use it for file types for which the mode is totally
broken (like awk scripts).
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>
>> Unlike editors like VI (an editor which is very good BTW), you don't
>> have the somewhat alien to many, different modes.
>
> You know how it is, two's too many, one's not enough.
>
>> Emacs largely behaves as people would expect an editor to behave.
>
> Unless you try to use it for file types for which the mode is totally
> broken (like awk scripts).
>
Well, I'd say its probably around 15 years since I've needed an awk script,
so I cannot comment on its mode. Personally, I've not found any of the
modes I need to be broken. have you had no luck reporting this as a bug? My
experience has been that any bugs I've run into have been addressed quite quickly.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Well, I'd say its probably around 15 years since I've needed an awk script,
> so I cannot comment on its mode. Personally, I've not found any of the
> modes I need to be broken. have you had no luck reporting this as a bug? My
> experience has been that any bugs I've run into have been addressed quite quickly.
It's not exactly a bug; the indentation is completely off; you have to
finish each line with a ";" (like in C) or it will mess it up. No awk
script that hasn't been written in emacs does this. The mode makes the
mistake of using CC-mode (I think) as its base, although awk is not C
but rather like sh, despite some syntactical superficialities.
I haven't reported it as a bug; it also hasn't changed in the last 10
years at least. I don't really care about it since I don't use emacs on
a regular basis.
The thing is, sh-mode is also horrible; I've found many emacs modes to
be broken in one way or the other with the exception of those that get
used really much (cc-mode, lisp-mode, latex-mode) and even those have
some annoying quirks. I'm not convinced of the benefit of having
all-to-clever modes for text editing.
Anyway, this is off-topic on here.
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>
>> Well, I'd say its probably around 15 years since I've needed an awk script,
>> so I cannot comment on its mode. Personally, I've not found any of the
>> modes I need to be broken. have you had no luck reporting this as a bug? My
>> experience has been that any bugs I've run into have been addressed quite quickly.
>
> It's not exactly a bug; the indentation is completely off; you have to
> finish each line with a ";" (like in C) or it will mess it up. No awk
> script that hasn't been written in emacs does this. The mode makes the
> mistake of using CC-mode (I think) as its base, although awk is not C
> but rather like sh, despite some syntactical superficialities.
> I haven't reported it as a bug; it also hasn't changed in the last 10
> years at least. I don't really care about it since I don't use emacs on
> a regular basis.
> The thing is, sh-mode is also horrible; I've found many emacs modes to
> be broken in one way or the other with the exception of those that get
> used really much (cc-mode, lisp-mode, latex-mode) and even those have
> some annoying quirks. I'm not convinced of the benefit of having
> all-to-clever modes for text editing.
> Anyway, this is off-topic on here.
OK, I get it. What you mean by broken is that it doesn't operate how you
feel it should. Essentially, you don't like the way they have implemented
the modes, which is fine. I have a slightly different interpretation of
'broken', which is that it doesn't perform as intended by the
designer/implementer.
Your right, it is off topic, so I'll not comment further.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Carlo Capocasa wrote:
> Also, I'm used to a save-compile-run development process,
I recommend running sbcl in one terminal, editing your code in gedit,
and copy&pasting expressions over from the editor into the sbcl repl.
You can (load "...") larger files into the repl, too.
Matthias Buelow escribi�:
> Carlo Capocasa wrote:
>
>> Also, I'm used to a save-compile-run development process,
>
> I recommend running sbcl in one terminal, editing your code in gedit,
> and copy&pasting expressions over from the editor into the sbcl repl.
> You can (load "...") larger files into the repl, too.
You could also print your code out, send it to yourself via regular
mail, when it arrives scan and OCR it into an emacs/slime buffer and
press ctrl-c alt-k to have it compiled in the underlying Lisp.
Of course, you could have typed it directly in emacs, but what would
have been the fun? :)
Leandro
> You could also print your code out, send it to yourself via regular
> mail, when it arrives scan and OCR it into an emacs/slime buffer and
> press ctrl-c alt-k to have it compiled in the underlying Lisp.
> Of course, you could have typed it directly in emacs, but what would
> have been the fun? :)
Please get a Chinese localized version of Emacs and use it with your
non-simplified Chinese input method of choice. Compare your
experience to that of a programmer who has not been nursed at the
teat of Emacs when he was young. Decide which approach is faster to
yield a small but useful Lisp program quickly to said programmer and
demonstrate more connection to what he already knows.
On 18 Sep, 18:23, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> > You could also print your code out, send it to yourself via regular
> > mail, when it arrives scan and OCR it into an emacs/slime buffer and
> > press ctrl-c alt-k to have it compiled in the underlying Lisp.
> > Of course, you could have typed it directly in emacs, but what would
> > have been the fun? :)
>
> Please get a Chinese localized version of Emacs and use it with your
> non-simplified Chinese input method of choice. Compare your
> experience to that of a programmer who has not been nursed at the
> teat of Emacs when he was young. Decide which approach is faster to
> yield a small but useful Lisp program quickly to said programmer and
> demonstrate more connection to what he already knows.
1) Why are you writing lisp in chinese?
2) Why aren't you using the unicode emacs build to do this?
> 1) Why are you writing lisp in chinese?
> 2) Why aren't you using the unicode emacs build to do this?
Actually, I'm not :)
But try getting a Chinese version of Emacs and you will know how I
feel trying to use the regular Emacs-- AND learn Lisp at the same time.
Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> writes:
> But try getting a Chinese version of Emacs and you will know how I
> feel trying to use the regular Emacs-- AND learn Lisp at the same
> time.
And yet, I recall doing exactly this at the university in 1977.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
On 18 Sep, 19:47, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> > 1) Why are you writing lisp in chinese?
> > 2) Why aren't you using the unicode emacs build to do this?
>
> Actually, I'm not :)
>
> But try getting a Chinese version of Emacs and you will know how I
> feel trying to use the regular Emacs-- AND learn Lisp at the same time.
Now I get you ;). I was thinking, "I've written lisp in emacs on a
chinese windows machine. What's he on about?"
But we've all been there. I learnt emacs and lisp together and it was
fine, well somewhat painful at first but otherwise fine. Seriously,
fire up emacs turn on the standard shortcut keys(it's marked cula on
the options menu)and start slime.
You've immediately got a much better interface to your lisp session
than hacking away at the terminal and you can learn emacs in bits and
pieces if and when you need to. It worked for me, now I miss emacs
when I'm using visual studio...
I mean use able if it suits you, or another IDE, but even *emacs* has
to be better than sbcl from the terminal.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:47:55 +0200, Carlo Capocasa wrote:
>> 1) Why are you writing lisp in chinese?
>> 2) Why aren't you using the unicode emacs build to do this?
>
> Actually, I'm not :)
>
Definitely not. Ans somehow _I_ get the strong feeling that you aren't
enyway near a clue about 'regular emacs'. A "chinese version"? The
following is from a regular snapshot build (actually about 4 month old)
as deployed to our department's student laptops ans audio workstations.
m-x list-input-methods
Chinese
chinese-sisheng (`ǚ' in mode line)
Sìshēng input method for pīnyīn transliteration of Chinese.
Chinese-BIG5
chinese-py-punct-b5 (`拼符' in mode line)
中文輸入【拼音】 and `v' for 標點符號輸入
chinese-punct-b5 (`標B' in mode line)
中文輸入【標點符號】
chinese-4corner (`四角' in mode line)
四角號碼::
chinese-array30 (`３０' in mode line)
中文【行列３０】
chinese-ecdict (`英漢' in mode line)
中文輸入【英漢辭典】
chinese-etzy (`倚注' in mode line)
中文輸入【倚天注音】
chinese-py-b5 (`拼B' in mode line)
漢字輸入::拼音::
chinese-qj-b5 (`全B' in mode line)
漢字輸入::全角::
chinese-zozy (`零注' in mode line)
中文輸入【零壹注音】
chinese-b5-tsangchi (`倉B' in mode line)
中文輸入【倉頡】BIG5
chinese-b5-quick (`簡B' in mode line)
中文輸入【簡易】BIG5
chinese-ctlaub (`劉粵' in mode line)
漢字輸入：劉錫祥式粵音：
Chinese-CNS
chinese-cns-tsangchi (`倉C' in mode line)
中文輸入【倉頡】CNS
chinese-cns-quick (`簡C' in mode line)
中文輸入【簡易】CNS
Chinese-GB
chinese-tonepy-punct (`拼符' in mode line)
汉字输入 带调拼音方案 and `v' for 标点符号输入
chinese-py-punct (`拼符' in mode line)
汉字输入 拼音方案 and `v' for 标点符号输入
chinese-ccdospy (`缩拼' in mode line)
汉字输入∷缩写拼音∷
chinese-punct (`标G' in mode line)
汉字输入∷标点符号∷\243\240
chinese-qj (`全G' in mode line)
汉字输入∷全角∷
chinese-sw (`首尾' in mode line)
汉字输入∷首尾∷
chinese-tonepy (`调拼' in mode line)
汉字输入∷带调拼音∷
chinese-ziranma (`自然' in mode line)
汉字输入∷【自然】∷
chinese-py (`拼G' in mode line)
汉字输入∷拼音∷
chinese-ctlau (`刘粤' in mode line)
汉字输入∷刘锡祥式粤音∷
(And that's only the chinese ones I paste here :-)
> But try getting a Chinese version of Emacs and you will know how I feel
> trying to use the regular Emacs-- AND learn Lisp at the same time.
The slime manual is still less than 50 pages - hardly intelectual overload
for a programmer, esp. when compared to the tomes of reference manuals
for, say, Eclipse ...
Cheers, Ralf Mattes
> I recommend running sbcl in one terminal, editing your code in gedit,
> and copy&pasting expressions over from the editor into the sbcl repl.
> You can (load "...") larger files into the repl, too.
That, I would consider very close to the needs of the newbie.
I think I started using sbcl --userinit file.lisp because bash has
command history and the sbcl repl doesn't.
On Sep 18, 11:44 am, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> > I recommend running sbcl in one terminal, editing your code in gedit,
> > and copy&pasting expressions over from the editor into the sbcl repl.
> > You can (load "...") larger files into the repl, too.
>
> That, I would consider very close to the needs of the newbie.
>
> I think I started using sbcl --userinit file.lisp because bash has
> command history and the sbcl repl doesn't.
I have found the use of slime with emacs very useful on top of sbcl.
The ability to TAB for auto completion of functions and hit space to
see the function parameters is very useful when searching in the
hyperspec.
> I have found the use of slime with emacs very useful on top of sbcl.
> The ability to TAB for auto completion of functions and hit space to
> see the function parameters is very useful when searching in the
> hyperspec.
Actually, the whole point is to not use Emacs. It's not free
software when you can only use one editor to write it.
Carlo Capocasa wrote:
>> I have found the use of slime with emacs very useful on top of sbcl.
>> The ability to TAB for auto completion of functions and hit space to
>> see the function parameters is very useful when searching in the
>> hyperspec.
>
> Actually, the whole point is to not use Emacs. It's not free
> software when you can only use one editor to write it.
Actually, the whole point is to not use Lisp. It's not free
software when you can only use one language to write it.
On Sep 18, 6:05 pm, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> > Nope, it's not.
>
> For me, it is.
1. Don't learn (*)lisp
2. Troll in comp.lang.lisp (check Gavino for examples)
3. Spam in comp.lang.lisp ( check our resident spammer for examples)
4. If you really decided to learn lisp. Learn some vapourware,
abandonware or marginalisedware lisp.
5. Don't do any search before you ask questions that were answered for
at least 100000000000000000 times before.
6. If any of the seasoned lispers get's mad because you asked a
quation that was alredy answered for at least 100000000000000000 times
before, start a blog whining about savages of comp.lang.lisp,
prefarably comparing it with eagle-scout community of you-name-it
langauge.
7. If you really started learning common lisp, stop at day two and
wine all the way long in this newsgroup how ugly it is.
8. Continue with lecturing Kent Pittman, Guy L. Steele, and the rest
of the ANSI committee what they were thinking while designing common
lisp and show them the right way it should be done.BTW I've heard
rumours that they were drank all the way through standardisation
process, and rolled dice whenever there was a dispute what features
would get in the standard.
9. Never do any programming in lisp, just hang up in c.l.l all day
long and brag nonsense
10. If you're really must program in lisp, do it like with your
previous favourite language, compiling files through command line,
loading scripts etc. Those things worked great with c and php what
the hell they shouldn't do the same with lisp?
11. Don't listen to experienced lispers. What the hell do they know
what you don't after using lisp for 50 years?
12. Criticize authors of lisp books, especially those who made their
books available as free downloads.
13. Don't buy lisp books.
14. Whine about how all the free lisp implemenattions suck and
commercial lisp are overpriced piece of shit.
15. Be abusive & unhelpfull to newbies
16. Don't write lisp libraries.
17. Whine how lisp lacks libraries in your favourite area.
18. If libraries you need exists, whine how low quality are they.
19. Don't bother to send bug reports to library authors, if they were
smart enough they would figure it out themselves.
20. Even if library you need exists, with good quality and under
acceptable license ,don't use it . Start from scratch creating your
own masterpiece.
(*) Whenever I say lisp in this newsgroup I mean common lisp. For
other meaning I use lisp family of languages
P� Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:57:22 +0200, skrev Carlo Capocasa
<······@carlocapocasa.com>:
>
>>> sbcl --noprint --userinit file.lisp
>
>> That's certainly very bad advice. If you'll stick with Lisp for some
>> more time, you'll hopefully find out for yourself that the only
>> reasonable way to develop in Lisp is to stay within the image and to
>> use a good IDE to interact with it.
>
> I think it's actually good advice, given the purpose of it is to
> simply enable to do something (anything!) useful with Lisp as
> quickly as possible.
>
> Carlo
If you like GUI IDE like stuff you might prefer the eclipse plugin.
http://www.paragent.com/lisp/cusp/cusp.htm
On Sep 18, 7:00 pm, "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> If you like GUI IDE like stuff you might prefer the eclipse plugin.http://www.paragent.com/lisp/cusp/cusp.htm
Or maybe ABLE:
http://phil.nullable.eu/
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
On Sep 18, 8:55 pm, Carlo Capocasa <······@carlocapocasa.com> wrote:
> > http://phil.nullable.eu/
>
> Awwwwww! You, my friend, are a hero.
>
> Carlo
Don't get too excited...it's very much pre-pre-Alpha at the moment.
But I wish you luck with it!
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
> Don't get too excited...it's very much pre-pre-Alpha at the moment.
> But I wish you luck with it!
Not as pre-alpha as using a text editor and the console, believe me!
Carlo
On Sep 16, 9:08 pm, Sato <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What kind of tutorial do you guys suggest I use when learninglisp.
> Also I noticed there are several flavors ofLISPout there...which
> should I start with?
I Highly, HIGHLY recommend this textbook, which you can get online
absolutely free:
Common Lisp A gentle introduction to symbolic computation
at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/index.html
I've been following it the last few days, and feel really confident
with what I've learned, plus it has that ultimate quality of being
free. In terms of the flavor, I'm using GNU CLISP, but I really have
no idea what would be better.