If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> writes:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
It seems like there are more meetings lately. I've been trying to keep
track with a Google calendar here:
http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=pm55j8kg30dnm54ib2if9fuocc%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FNew_York&gsessionid=zEmztQw37sRlk7nv-CRssw
Just in May there are ten Lisp-oriented meetings or events. That's
pretty cool.
Zach
··········@gmail.com" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Nothing in Washington, DC, as usual.
Actually, FringeDC meets on May 10th, but I forgot to add it to my
calendar.
http://www.lisperati.com/fringedc.html has more info.
Zach
From: Peter Hildebrandt
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <op.uak6d8s5x6i8pv@babyfoot>
On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article
about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing to
think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are we
speaking about?
(1) The general public (use by hobby programmers, for scripting,
mentioning in blogs, boards, magazines)
(2) Start ups (people use lisp to start a business)
(3) Major corporations (companies using lisp for production software
products, eg. ITA)
(1-2) are of interest, major corporations tend let smaller players figure
out new technology before they adopt them. (2) generally follows from
(1): People use experience gained in hobby and OSS programming to found
their business. So we look at (1) in more detail:
I believe the barrier to entry is too high here, and I think the major
reason is that the lisp world is so pluralistic: Which implementation do
I use? Which IDE? Which libraries? Where do I get what?
(Unfortunately) people expect there to be one way to do things, i.e. they
expect to go to lisp.org, "click here to download", double-click the
installer, select "example-1" and first launch, click "run", and look at
their first own weblog :-)
As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
the libraries? (Obviously I figured it out, but it took me two weeks or
so. I was set up with Java/Eclipse in 15 minutes). I hear you guys cry
out: "But there is implementation X that does A and implementation Y that
does B and C. Choice is what is great about lisp!". I know. Now go and
reread this paragraph.
In conclusion, I believe that the lisp boom won't come before there is a
canonic open source implementation and a canonic repository for
libraries. I believe all the material is there: SBCL would make a great
basis, Eclipse/Cusp a newbie-friendly IDE (which already comes with a few
libs), we have a number of great libraries, and the wholes (currently I
see Ajax/web app and GUI) will hopefully be filled soon.
Now the question is, of course, whether this is what we want. After
reading c.l.l for a year, I'd say: no. There won't be sufficient
community support for a "one corrent solution" approach, so lisp will stay
pluralistic and confusing. On the other had, those who make it through
the first two months or so are rewarded with a great system. And, I
think, among those that have the endurance, a lisp boom has already
begun. But it won't be the ruby-on-rails kind of boom.
Peter
[1] http://groovy.codehaus.org/
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras
> <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
>
> I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article
> about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing
> to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are
> we speaking about?
And define "close". :)
Also, can we count Java (gc at least, and anonymous classes
(pwuahahaha)) and Python (interactive and crappy GC at least) and Ruby
(dynamic and blocks at least) and Groovy as being part of the Lisp boom?
Because in the end it is the ideas that matter (and have already
boomed), the rest will follow.
What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and
standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that
would be funny, but not surprising. Demming was ignored by Detroit but
listened to by Japan, who then kicked Detroit's ass precisely with
Demming's ideas.
The good news is my passport is good for ten years now thanx to ECLM.
Meanwhile, I think OpenAIR could do for CL (and Cells) what Rails did
for Ruby. Hopefully Andy is making progress.
And watch out for my Algebra app. Early results indicate it works
surprisingly well with unhappy Algebra students, and Algebra has become
the line in the sand for math education in the US. If we get another
success story (here or with ITA) look out. If you thought Paul Graham
made a lot of noise, you haven't been clicking thru my sig.
Given OpenLaszlo, FlapJax, Trellis, and Adobe Adam all doing Cells
without Lisp, to me the fun question is who will win first, Cells or Lisp.
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On May 3, 1:30 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras
> > <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> >> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> >> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
> >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> >> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
> > I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article
> > about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing
> > to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are
> > we speaking about?
>
> And define "close". :)
>
> Also, can we count Java (gc at least, and anonymous classes
> (pwuahahaha)) and Python (interactive and crappy GC at least) and Ruby
> (dynamic and blocks at least) and Groovy as being part of the Lisp boom?
> Because in the end it is the ideas that matter (and have already
> boomed), the rest will follow.
>
> What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and
> standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that
> would be funny, but not surprising. Demming was ignored by Detroit but
> listened to by Japan, who then kicked Detroit's ass precisely with
> Demming's ideas.
>
> The good news is my passport is good for ten years now thanx to ECLM.
>
> Meanwhile, I think OpenAIR could do for CL (and Cells) what Rails did
> for Ruby. Hopefully Andy is making progress.
>
> And watch out for my Algebra app. Early results indicate it works
> surprisingly well with unhappy Algebra students, and Algebra has become
> the line in the sand for math education in the US. If we get another
> success story (here or with ITA) look out. If you thought Paul Graham
> made a lot of noise, you haven't been clicking thru my sig.
>
> Given OpenLaszlo, FlapJax, Trellis, and Adobe Adam all doing Cells
> without Lisp, to me the fun question is who will win first, Cells or Lisp.
>
> kt
>
> --http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
> ECLM rant:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
> ECLM talk:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Thankfully for Allegro and Lispworks, Kenny isn't doing their
forecasting.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 3, 1:30 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras
>>><······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>>>fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>>>more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>>Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>>>you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>
>>>I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article
>>>about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing
>>>to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are
>>>we speaking about?
>>
>>And define "close". :)
>>
>>Also, can we count Java (gc at least, and anonymous classes
>>(pwuahahaha)) and Python (interactive and crappy GC at least) and Ruby
>>(dynamic and blocks at least) and Groovy as being part of the Lisp boom?
>>Because in the end it is the ideas that matter (and have already
>>boomed), the rest will follow.
>>
>>What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and
>>standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that
>>would be funny, but not surprising. Demming was ignored by Detroit but
>>listened to by Japan, who then kicked Detroit's ass precisely with
>>Demming's ideas.
>>
>>The good news is my passport is good for ten years now thanx to ECLM.
>>
>>Meanwhile, I think OpenAIR could do for CL (and Cells) what Rails did
>>for Ruby. Hopefully Andy is making progress.
>>
>>And watch out for my Algebra app. Early results indicate it works
>>surprisingly well with unhappy Algebra students, and Algebra has become
>>the line in the sand for math education in the US. If we get another
>>success story (here or with ITA) look out. If you thought Paul Graham
>>made a lot of noise, you haven't been clicking thru my sig.
>>
>>Given OpenLaszlo, FlapJax, Trellis, and Adobe Adam all doing Cells
>>without Lisp, to me the fun question is who will win first, Cells or Lisp.
>>
>>kt
>>
>>--http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
>>ECLM rant:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
>>ECLM talk:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
>
>
> Thankfully for Allegro and Lispworks, Kenny isn't doing their
> forecasting.
Hunh? This must be my second misconstrual in as many days -- I just
forecasted good things for commercial Lisps.
Corrollary: I do not think Franz went to Japan by mistake.[1]
But whatever you meant, you are right: they know better than I ever will
how well Lisp is doing. My only gauge is this NG... omigod! I have
become an optimist! They may not let me back into NYC. :(
kenny
[1] http://lemonodor.com/archives/001445.html
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On May 3, 8:30 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and
> standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that
> would be funny, but not surprising.
Kenny, if one knows the history, then he knows the future...
http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/gigo-1997-04.html
Have fun :)
Plamen Stamov
P.S. And for newbies - read better the rest of the Baker's articles.
From: Peter Hildebrandt
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <op.uaqsuiv0x6i8pv@babyfoot>
On Tue, 06 May 2008 18:13:21 +0200, <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 8:30 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and
>> standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that
>> would be funny, but not surprising.
>
> Kenny, if one knows the history, then he knows the future...
>
> http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/gigo-1997-04.html
Wonderful reading, thanks a lot! :)
Peter
> Have fun :)
>
> Plamen Stamov
>
> P.S. And for newbies - read better the rest of the Baker's articles.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
In article <·················@babyfoot>,
"Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> In conclusion, I believe that the lisp boom won't come before there is a
> canonic open source implementation and a canonic repository for
> libraries. I believe all the material is there: SBCL would make a great
> basis, Eclipse/Cusp a newbie-friendly IDE (which already comes with a few
> libs), we have a number of great libraries, and the wholes (currently I
> see Ajax/web app and GUI) will hopefully be filled soon.
>
> Now the question is, of course, whether this is what we want. After
> reading c.l.l for a year, I'd say: no. There won't be sufficient
> community support for a "one corrent solution" approach, so lisp will stay
> pluralistic and confusing. On the other had, those who make it through
> the first two months or so are rewarded with a great system. And, I
> think, among those that have the endurance, a lisp boom has already
> begun. But it won't be the ruby-on-rails kind of boom.
I have already seen one Lisp boom (80s) - mostly fueled by US
military spending. Personally I'd like to see a more civilian approach
which is also sustainable over a longer period of time.
That first Lisp boom ended abruptly and left a huge crater.
I'm also pro-choice and for competition - I don't like
a monoculture. ;-)
>
> Peter
>
> [1] http://groovy.codehaus.org/
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
On May 3, 12:21 pm, "Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I believe the barrier to entry is too high here, and I think the major
> reason is that the lisp world is so pluralistic: Which implementation do
> I use? Which IDE? Which libraries? Where do I get what?
> (Unfortunately) people expect there to be one way to do things, i.e. they
> expect to go to lisp.org, "click here to download", double-click the
> installer, select "example-1" and first launch, click "run", and look at
> their first own weblog :-)
>
> As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
> to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
> the libraries?
I was actually asking myself this question this weekend: I have a code
problem which for various reasons I need to break out into something
better than ruby. I need local performance specifically and I'd like
to make it distributable. (Something along the mapreduce model
probably.) I need fairly tight control over memory (at least I need
access to mmap() and ideally there's already a good btree
implementation that's fast). Event base concurrency would be nice.
(Also, it should go without saying that it supports sockets and
http.) I know java the best and it's performance quirks, so its a low
risk thing for me, but, ug. The ruby code makes extensive use of meta
programming, and for what I'm doing I expect to do a lot more. So
another reason to not go back to java. I've never used lisp but it
occurs to me that this is probably what the hubbub of macros is all
about.
I've been looking around and everything that's out there is either out
of date or lacking consensus. Developing on OSX and deploying on
gentoo linux. Everything is so fragmented and incompatible, I mean
"pluralistic", that its unclear. If I use Ready Lisp, will I be
committing to deploying on SBCL? Do I need to care about that?
I want exactly the go to lisp.org and click download this. Ruby has
like 5 distros now, MRI, Rubinious, JRuby, IronRuby, some other thing
built on a smalltalk VM -- and when I see that many options, I don't
see choice. I see: In Someway, Every One Of These Choices Profoundly
Suck. I mean, diversity and variation are only positive when you are
talking about surface frivolities; core things are shared and remained
unchanged. There's not a lot of variation in mitochondrial dna.
Lisp seems cool, and I have a good reason now to actually check it out
with a real problem. What would you guys suggest to download and
install? Pls keep the caveats to the minimum.
Thanks.
-w
http://benchcoach.com
Will Schenk <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Lisp seems cool, and I have a good reason now to actually check it out
> with a real problem. What would you guys suggest to download and
> install? Pls keep the caveats to the minimum.
Personally, I would download the latest sbcl and slime from their
repositories, but other distributions are excellent too.
Be sure to check out the #lisp IRC group on irc.freenode.net. You will
doubtless encounter some problems along the way, and having a live group to
answer your questions is less frustrating than debugging via Usenet news
messages.
> I want exactly the go to lisp.org and click download this.
Anyone got suggestions about why this doesn't already exist? I've been
learning CL with Peter Siebel's LispBox on Windows, and it's a great
start (clisp, slime, and emacs all correctly configured) but why isn't
there a common 'starter distro'? A compier and a large collection of
libraries so people can get going with less trouble?
In response to the original post; I suggest that what gets popular is
a combination of language, compiler/iterpreter, standard libraries,
and optionally, editor; eg, (ruby mri gems), (java javac sdk eclipse),
(c# csc .net framework visual studio), (perl activeperl cpan)
So I think that for there to be a boom, there has to be a default
compiler for beginners, distributed with a large-enough-to-be-useful
set of libraries. It's that compound entity that has a chance of
booming.
Steve Cooper wrote:
>> I want exactly the go to lisp.org and click download this.
>
>
> Anyone got suggestions about why this doesn't already exist? I've been
> learning CL with Peter Siebel's LispBox on Windows, and it's a great
> start (clisp, slime, and emacs all correctly configured) but why isn't
> there a common 'starter distro'? A compier and a large collection of
> libraries so people can get going with less trouble?
History. Lisp began by exploding into variants, then on its deathbed
threw off an ember that was CL the idea, which then got picked up by the
wandering bands of AI winter survivors who again created a multiplicity
of implementations joined by a standard but still a multiplicity hence
not a one-stop shopping experience.
This will not change because CL is doing quite well now and we are all
busy writing applications and do not care much about proselytizing.
Hmmm. Is there an opportunity for LW here? The ACL IDE has not made it
to the mac, not even sure how great the *nix coverage is. Perhaps LW the
company good put out a big "noobs welcome" sign and become the de facto
portal to CL. Too bad CAPI does not have Cells.
>
> In response to the original post; I suggest that what gets popular is
> a combination of language, compiler/iterpreter, standard libraries,
> and optionally, editor; eg, (ruby mri gems), (java javac sdk eclipse),
> (c# csc .net framework visual studio), (perl activeperl cpan)
>
> So I think that for there to be a boom, there has to be a default
> compiler for beginners, distributed with a large-enough-to-be-useful
> set of libraries. It's that compound entity that has a chance of
> booming.
I think this is true, but we got together and decided it would be more
fun to win on the merits of nothing but the language itself.
And it is so much fun watching the noobs trying to get up to speed. Ever
sit at the top of the chairlift on the bunny slope watching the
beginners spilling out of the chairs onto their faces?
Something like that.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:15:00 -0400, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> Too bad CAPI does not have Cells.
You didn't manage to sell it to them while you were in Amsterdam? I
was expecting LispWorks with Cells Inside with release 6.0 or earlier.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:15:00 -0400, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Too bad CAPI does not have Cells.
>
>
> You didn't manage to sell it to them while you were in Amsterdam? I
> was expecting LispWorks with Cells Inside with release 6.0 or earlier.
>
No, they did not see any compelling advantage. How they can live without
dozens of letters zooming around in a circle beats me.
Mind you, neither has Franz been sucked into the Cells empire and they
have seen it up close for years in both AllegroStore and now
AllegroGraph never mind my GUIs (I only CGed briefly, but it is not
clear how big CG is for them being a windows-only deal).
I came close with Franz one time but their chief science officer was
unable to build the Cello project. Crazy thing is it was OpenAL that
stopped him and that is one of the easier bolt-ons.
Not to worry, I think OpenAIR will trigger a Cells boom. It will likely
involve Cells/JS with dependencies reaching across the Interweb, should
be fun.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:02:14 -0400, Ken Tilton wrote:
> Not to worry, I think OpenAIR will trigger a Cells boom. It will likely
> involve Cells/JS with dependencies reaching across the Interweb, should
> be fun.
>
> kenny
That could be the ticket. Reinventing the whole damn OS (Yes I know Ruby
and Python are popular, and Perl even has a complete shell utils
replacement, and NONE of them are required to rewrite the whole OS) is a
hard and unsatisfying task. On the other hand all of them have an
extension to gtk/qt and other good stuff etc.
Cl has extensions, but for some odd reason they feel different. When you
get lisp started you feel like you walked into your castle, if you're a
programmer. If you're not you feel like you're in someone else's castle.
But the future will be modular computing. It's going to be the attempt
which finally buries Microsoft under their own hubris while Lisp could in
fact lead the way.
Personally, I'd like the user, sysadmin, and developer distinctions to
become oh I suppose more blurred.
Unix rewarded you for guessing correctly about what would happen if you
piped two programs together. Lisp could do that as well.
What we need is a GUI which thinks like lisp. Like say an icon represents
a lisp predicate, where you drag it represents the arguments. The way to
trick the user into being a programmer is to interact and provide
feedback.
In fact as you click and drag there should be a feedback window which
contains a lisp program representation of your activity. The window might
ask if you would like to save your clicking as an action icon. The user
would be used to seeing the code rather than thinking it's some special
geeky crap. Heck a phone applet might show changes in the code while the
user types the phone number. Even more complex changes if they add an
area code.
Rather than begging the user to regain his or her humanity, which is what
lisp really does, just give it to them in a subtle way.
For example they could enter a single phone number in the neato gui. But
suppose they really need to find this person at several phone numbers, by
turning the space where the phone number sits in the code into an entry
to be changed they can type in a list.
After a week of lisp hacking they'll beg for more.
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com
P� Thu, 08 May 2008 18:53:00 +0200, skrev Steve Cooper
<················@gmail.com>:
>> I want exactly the go to lisp.org and click download this.
>
> Anyone got suggestions about why this doesn't already exist? I've been
> learning CL with Peter Siebel's LispBox on Windows, and it's a great
> start (clisp, slime, and emacs all correctly configured) but why isn't
> there a common 'starter distro'? A compier and a large collection of
> libraries so people can get going with less trouble?
>
> In response to the original post; I suggest that what gets popular is
> a combination of language, compiler/iterpreter, standard libraries,
> and optionally, editor; eg, (ruby mri gems), (java javac sdk eclipse),
> (c# csc .net framework visual studio), (perl activeperl cpan)
>
> So I think that for there to be a boom, there has to be a default
> compiler for beginners, distributed with a large-enough-to-be-useful
> set of libraries. It's that compound entity that has a chance of
> booming.
There is. LispWorks Personal Edition and then the Lisp starter pack.
http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/index.html
http://weitz.de/starter-pack/
--------------
John Thingstad
In article
<····································@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Will Schenk <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 12:21�pm, "Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe the barrier to entry is too high here, and I think the major �
> > reason is that the lisp world is so pluralistic: �Which implementation do �
> > I use? �Which IDE? �Which libraries? �Where do I get what? �
> > (Unfortunately) people expect there to be one way to do things, i.e. they �
> > expect to go to lisp.org, "click here to download", double-click the �
> > installer, select "example-1" and first launch, click "run", and look at �
> > their first own weblog :-)
> >
> > As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: �which implementation �
> > to use? �Where to download? �Where is a good discussion board? �What are �
> > the libraries?
>
> I was actually asking myself this question this weekend: I have a code
> problem which for various reasons I need to break out into something
> better than ruby. I need local performance specifically and I'd like
> to make it distributable. (Something along the mapreduce model
> probably.) I need fairly tight control over memory (at least I need
> access to mmap() and ideally there's already a good btree
> implementation that's fast). Event base concurrency would be nice.
> (Also, it should go without saying that it supports sockets and
> http.) I know java the best and it's performance quirks, so its a low
> risk thing for me, but, ug. The ruby code makes extensive use of meta
> programming, and for what I'm doing I expect to do a lot more. So
> another reason to not go back to java. I've never used lisp but it
> occurs to me that this is probably what the hubbub of macros is all
> about.
>
> I've been looking around and everything that's out there is either out
> of date or lacking consensus. Developing on OSX and deploying on
> gentoo linux. Everything is so fragmented and incompatible, I mean
> "pluralistic", that its unclear. If I use Ready Lisp, will I be
> committing to deploying on SBCL? Do I need to care about that?
It is good to ask here. You will get many different answers. ;-)
Then you still have to choose, but with more knowledge. ;-)
>
> I want exactly the go to lisp.org and click download this. Ruby has
> like 5 distros now, MRI, Rubinious, JRuby, IronRuby, some other thing
> built on a smalltalk VM -- and when I see that many options, I don't
> see choice. I see: In Someway, Every One Of These Choices Profoundly
> Suck. I mean, diversity and variation are only positive when you are
> talking about surface frivolities; core things are shared and remained
> unchanged. There's not a lot of variation in mitochondrial dna.
>
> Lisp seems cool, and I have a good reason now to actually check it out
> with a real problem. What would you guys suggest to download and
> install? Pls keep the caveats to the minimum.
Well, many who don't want to struggle (and have the money) use
a commercial version (LispWorks, Allegro CL, ...).
I would recommend both of them. IMHO both are excellent
platforms.
For those who don't have the money, like open source, or
have some other reasons there are a several choices with some tradeoffs.
SBCL: generally fast, largish, threads on some ports (Mac OS X)
are 'experimental', widely used. I would just check if it runs on
your platform and try it.
CMUCL: generally fast, largish (I use it on Mac OS X)
Clozure CL: mostly fast, slower FP code, fast compiler, smaller code
ECLS: recently gained more traction, good integration with C
(embeddable)
CLISP: a bit slower than some of the above, small code,
quite portable and very useful for scripting tasks
The IDE for those is usually SLIME/Emacs. The commercial
CL systems have better (IMHO) IDEs - you pay for that.
Plus there are some other options. Scieneer CL for example
might be useful when some performances requirements
would make multi-cpu machines necessary. Corman CL
runs under Windows and is useful, when you want to
write either Windows software or you want a 'cheap'
IDE under Windows. Some old-timers use MCL on Macs.
Some math packages run under GCL.
Dan Weinreb had a good recent overview:
http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
>
> Thanks.
>
> -w
> http://benchcoach.com
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
On May 7, 7:55 pm, Will Schenk <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 12:21 pm, "Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe the barrier to entry is too high here, and I think the major
> > reason is that the lisp world is so pluralistic: Which implementation do
> > I use? Which IDE? Which libraries? Where do I get what?
> > (Unfortunately) people expect there to be one way to do things, i.e. they
> > expect to go to lisp.org, "click here to download", double-click the
> > installer, select "example-1" and first launch, click "run", and look at
> > their first own weblog :-)
>
> > As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
> > to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
> > the libraries?
>
> I was actually asking myself this question this weekend: I have a code
> problem which for various reasons I need to break out into something
> better than ruby. I need local performance specifically and I'd like
> to make it distributable. (Something along the mapreduce model
> probably.) I need fairly tight control over memory (at least I need
> access to mmap() and ideally there's already a good btree
> implementation that's fast). Event base concurrency would be nice.
> (Also, it should go without saying that it supports sockets and
> http.) I know java the best and it's performance quirks, so its a low
> risk thing for me, but, ug. The ruby code makes extensive use of meta
> programming, and for what I'm doing I expect to do a lot more. So
> another reason to not go back to java. I've never used lisp but it
> occurs to me that this is probably what the hubbub of macros is all
> about.
>
> I've been looking around and everything that's out there is either out
> of date or lacking consensus. Developing on OSX and deploying on
> gentoo linux. Everything is so fragmented and incompatible, I mean
> "pluralistic", that its unclear. If I use Ready Lisp, will I be
> committing to deploying on SBCL? Do I need to care about that?
>
> I want exactly the go to lisp.org and click download this. Ruby has
> like 5 distros now, MRI, Rubinious, JRuby, IronRuby, some other thing
> built on a smalltalk VM -- and when I see that many options, I don't
> see choice. I see: In Someway, Every One Of These Choices Profoundly
> Suck. I mean, diversity and variation are only positive when you are
> talking about surface frivolities; core things are shared and remained
> unchanged. There's not a lot of variation in mitochondrial dna.
>
> Lisp seems cool, and I have a good reason now to actually check it out
> with a real problem. What would you guys suggest to download and
> install? Pls keep the caveats to the minimum.
If you don't want to use commercial lisp because of money,ideology or
whatever I recommend sbcl+slime for linux, a lot of libraries, large
userbase etc,I don't have a mac so I can't say anything about it. If
you're shopping for web framework take a look at weblocks
http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-weblocks/ great doc easy to install,
work under win/linux/mac
>
> Thanks.
>
> -whttp://benchcoach.com
On May 3, 11:21 am, "Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
> to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
> the libraries? (Obviously I figured it out, but it took me two weeks or
> so. I was set up with Java/Eclipse in 15 minutes).
I just wrote a setup guide for CLISP/Emacs/SLIME[1]. When I ran
through it again to test it, it took me about 15-20 minutes. It's not
quite as out-of-the-box as it could be, but it is thorough and
unambiguous.
-Peter
[1] http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/installing-clisp-emacs-and-slime-on-windows-xp/
Peter Christensen wrote:
> On May 3, 11:21 am, "Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
>>to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
>>the libraries? (Obviously I figured it out, but it took me two weeks or
>>so. I was set up with Java/Eclipse in 15 minutes).
>
>
> I just wrote a setup guide for CLISP/Emacs/SLIME[1]. When I ran
> through it again to test it, it took me about 15-20 minutes. It's not
> quite as out-of-the-box as it could be, but it is thorough and
> unambiguous.
>
> -Peter
>
> [1] http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/installing-clisp-emacs-and-slime-on-windows-xp/
The Tilton Prediction ("A (Lisp) Child Shall Lead Them") made manifest.
Nice work.
kzo
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Peter Christensen wrote:
> On May 3, 11:21 am, "Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
>> to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
>> the libraries? (Obviously I figured it out, but it took me two weeks or
>> so. I was set up with Java/Eclipse in 15 minutes).
>
> I just wrote a setup guide for CLISP/Emacs/SLIME[1]. When I ran
> through it again to test it, it took me about 15-20 minutes. It's not
> quite as out-of-the-box as it could be, but it is thorough and
> unambiguous.
Wow, that is really cool! :-)
I've been thinking about doing something like that for a while, but I
never got round to it. It's great you took the time.
I just reinstalled everything (emacs/slime/sbcl/paredit) in Ubuntu 8.04
-- and I was pleasently suprised: It took about five minutes! (ok, I
was cheating: I reused my old .emacs config file :-)) I hope I manage
to document that once my current project is done.
Again, kudos to you!
Peter
> -Peter
>
> [1] http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/installing-clisp-emacs-and-slime-on-windows-xp/
On May 16, 12:13 pm, Peter Christensen <···················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 3, 11:21 am, "Peter Hildebrandt" <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
> > to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
> > the libraries? (Obviously I figured it out, but it took me two weeks or
> > so. I was set up with Java/Eclipse in 15 minutes).
>
> I just wrote a setup guide for CLISP/Emacs/SLIME[1]. When I ran
> through it again to test it, it took me about 15-20 minutes. It's not
> quite as out-of-the-box as it could be, but it is thorough and
> unambiguous.
>
> -Peter
>
> [1]http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/installing-clisp-emacs-and-...
And here's one for SBCL on Windows:
http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/installing-sbcl-emacs-and-slime-on-windows-xp/
-Peter
In article
<····································@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
I don't think we will see a Lisp 'boom'. But I think
the slow, but steady growth will continue in the
next years. Plus, some people might be bored with their
current programming tools (it is a fashion industry) and will
look for new ways to do the same as before and write
about it. I hope we won't see too many of those...
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
On 3 Mai, 21:34, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
definietly not.
On 4 Mag, 05:08, ·············@gmail.com wrote:
> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
> definietly not.
Gimme everything. And free. And now. And without my contribution.
Does this work anywhere in your personal life?
-PM
········@gmail.com wrote:
> On 4 Mag, 05:08, ·············@gmail.com wrote:
>> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
>> definietly not.
>
> Gimme everything. And free. And now. And without my contribution.
> Does this work anywhere in your personal life?
It does seem to work all right if one is using Python.
There is lots of stuff out there for which it does not really
matter whether one is using CL, Python, Ruby, or any other half-sane
language. In that situation, the language where you can just
say "import X" for stuff like regexps, HTTP, HTML etc. is going
to win. And for good reason, I might add.
--
Pertti
P� Mon, 05 May 2008 09:18:11 +0200, skrev Pertti Kellom�ki
<················@tut.fi>:
> ········@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 4 Mag, 05:08, ·············@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
>>> definietly not.
>> Gimme everything. And free. And now. And without my contribution.
>> Does this work anywhere in your personal life?
>
> It does seem to work all right if one is using Python.
>
> There is lots of stuff out there for which it does not really
> matter whether one is using CL, Python, Ruby, or any other half-sane
> language. In that situation, the language where you can just
> say "import X" for stuff like regexps, HTTP, HTML etc. is going
> to win. And for good reason, I might add.
I see thee approaches here.
Indeed if all you do is call library code, who cares how fast the language
is?
After all the library is doing all the work anyhow.
Of course there are cases where Python, Ruby etc are just to slow like
when implementing non trivial algorithms of your own. So you need a
library for everything. (Web designers like this way.)
If you don't have a library you you are left with implementing it in C or
simular. LUA works on this principle. Do the speed critical stuff in
C/C++. Do the glue code in LUA. (Computer games people like this way.)
CL is just another alternative. It allows you to customize the language to
fit the problem and COMPILE it.
Particularly handy if the problem you want to solve isn't that trivial in
the first place.
(Expert systems, CAD/CIM, Gene mapping perhaps)
No CL isn't Ruby and might not attract the same people. Personally I am
fine with that.
--------------
John Thingstad
On 5 Mag, 09:18, Pertti Kellomäki <················@tut.fi> wrote:
> > Gimme everything. And free. And now. And without my contribution.
> > Does this work anywhere in your personal life?
>
> It does seem to work all right if one is using Python.
Wow, I didn't know that Python does have this kind of bad educational
attitude...
;)
-PM
Pertti Kellomäki <················@tut.fi> writes:
>
> There is lots of stuff out there for which it does not really matter
> whether one is using CL, Python, Ruby, or any other half-sane
> language. In that situation, the language where you can just say
> "import X" for stuff like regexps, HTTP, HTML etc. is going to
> win. And for good reason, I might add.
Yes. Fortunately, for the important Lisps one just goes to weitz.de and
grabs CL-PPCRE (faster Perl-compatible regexps than Perl!) and
Hunchentoot. HTML generation is another issue, although I'm partial to
CL-WHO (also from Dr. Weitz). For a good portion of the '&c.' weitz.de
is your one-stop shop...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Customs officers enter into a Faustian bargain whereby they are given
absolute power in exchange for their sense of humour. Hitler's dad, you
will remember noddingly, was a Customs officer. And _Hitler_ thought he
was a nasty piece of work. --Mil Millington
P� Sun, 04 May 2008 05:08:43 +0200, skrev <·············@gmail.com>:
> On 3 Mai, 21:34, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
> definietly not.
Of course my LispWorks system supports all of the above..
It does not do 'symmetric' multiprocessing if that is what you mean.
I might add that none of these things are a part of the C standard either.
That hasn't prevented C from being a popular language.
Common Lisp is just a common denominator for Lisp's. Commercial versions
like LispWorks and ACL come with large libraries in addition to ANSI
Common Lisp.
As it is - it is strong enough to write real applications today.
--------------
John Thingstad
On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:09:58 +0200, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> Of course my LispWorks system supports all of the above.. It does
> not do 'symmetric' multiprocessing if that is what you mean.
The next version will do. Dave Fox made an announcement at the ECLM
asking people interested in beta-testing this to contact LispWorks.
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:09:58 +0200, John Thingstad <·······@online.no> wrote:
> P� Sun, 04 May 2008 05:08:43 +0200, skrev <·············@gmail.com>:
[...]
>> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
>> definietly not.
>
> Of course my LispWorks system supports all of the above..
> It does not do 'symmetric' multiprocessing if that is what you mean.
> I might add that none of these things are a part of the C standard either.
> That hasn't prevented C from being a popular language.
However the libraries to do thouse things have been standardized.
> Common Lisp is just a common denominator for Lisp's. Commercial versions
> like LispWorks and ACL come with large libraries in addition to ANSI
> Common Lisp.
Thats the problem. I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of
CL that is dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender.
On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:11:25 GMT, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <········@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of CL that is
> dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender.
How is that different from C/C++?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
>
>> I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of CL that is
>> dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender.
>
> How is that different from C/C++?
With standard C plus standard POSIX, you're pretty much certain that
your app will run anywhere important. You're not certain that it'll run
fast or particularly well, and of course there are those edge cases that
need to be taken care of--but my perception is that C+POSIX is much more
reliable a platform than Common Lisp.
It's also much more low-level and much more prone to segfaults and
security holes. At the moment I'd rather program in non-portable CL
than in portable C, but that's me.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and
murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit
suicide. --John Adams, 1814
On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:43:16 -0600, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> With standard C plus standard POSIX, you're pretty much certain that
> your app will run anywhere important.
How many useful and/or successful Windows apps have been written in
pure standard C plus standard POSIX?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Tue, 06 May 2008 11:51:53 -0400, Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de>
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:43:16 -0600, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> With standard C plus standard POSIX, you're pretty much certain that
>> your app will run anywhere important.
>
>How many useful and/or successful Windows apps have been written in
>pure standard C plus standard POSIX?
Zero ... it can't be done. Windows itself abuses portability. The
code between the GUI glue can be portable but the whole cannot be.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:20:29 -0400, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>>How many useful and/or successful Windows apps have been written in
>>pure standard C plus standard POSIX?
>
> Zero ... it can't be done.
Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make.
> Windows itself abuses portability. The code between the GUI glue
> can be portable but the whole cannot be.
That's different for GUI programs on OS X or KDE or Gnome?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Tue, 06 May 2008 13:55:13 -0400, Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de>
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:20:29 -0400, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Windows itself abuses portability. The code between the GUI glue
>> can be portable but the whole cannot be.
>
>That's different for GUI programs on OS X or KDE or Gnome?
It potentially could be if the program were written for raw X instead
of using a widget framework or the native window manager.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:47:20 -0400, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>>That's different for GUI programs on OS X or KDE or Gnome?
>
> It potentially could be if the program were written for raw X
> instead of using a widget framework or the native window manager.
Sounds like fun. And I'm sure the users will like it, especially the
Mac users...
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:47:20 -0400, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>That's different for GUI programs on OS X or KDE or Gnome?
>>
>> It potentially could be if the program were written for raw X
>> instead of using a widget framework or the native window manager.
>
> Sounds like fun. And I'm sure the users will like it, especially the
> Mac users...
That said, some MacOS (not MacOSX) applications have been written like
this, re-implementing widgets looking exactly like those of the Mac
Toolbox, to be nice to Mac users. (IIRC, because it was written in
some language where it was easier to do that than to add a FFI to the
Toolbox). Of course, it only lasted until Apple Fashion Director
changed the look-of-the-day of their widgets.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Peter Hildebrandt
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <op.uarvk8l8x6i8pv@babyfoot>
On Wed, 07 May 2008 04:47:20 +0200, wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 13:55:13 -0400, Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:20:29 -0400, George Neuner
>> <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Windows itself abuses portability. The code between the GUI glue
>>> can be portable but the whole cannot be.
>>
>> That's different for GUI programs on OS X or KDE or Gnome?
>
> It potentially could be if the program were written for raw X instead
> of using a widget framework or the native window manager.
Actually, the widget frameworks for both KDE and Gnome, Qt and GTK
respectively, are available for linux, windows, and OSX -- meaning that if
you refrain from using platform-specific things, your GUI application will
in fact be portable.
The critical point here is the separation of operating system (platform
specific), window manager (less so), and widget toolkit (portable).
Peter
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
>
>> With standard C plus standard POSIX, you're pretty much certain that
>> your app will run anywhere important.
>
> How many useful and/or successful Windows apps have been written in
> pure standard C plus standard POSIX?
Well, cygwin has a lot:-)
Note that I wrote 'anywhere important.' Microsoft Windows is to
computing as the Ottoman Empire was to late nineteenth century politics:
it covers a lot of territory, but no-one takes it seriously anymore.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Death Before Dishonour
Beer Before Lunch
On Tue, 06 May 2008 17:03:42 -0600, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Note that I wrote 'anywhere important.' Microsoft Windows is to
> computing as the Ottoman Empire was to late nineteenth century
> politics: it covers a lot of territory, but no-one takes it
> seriously anymore.
Whoa, really? And I - naive as I am - thought an operating
system that has a 95% market penetration must have /some/
economical relevance at least. Now you're telling me nobody
except me takes it seriously anymore?
That's what I love about this newsgroup - you get the inside
scoop from real practitioners. And for free!
Thanks, man! Anyone wants my LispWorks Windows license?
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 17:03:42 -0600, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Note that I wrote 'anywhere important.' Microsoft Windows is to
>> computing as the Ottoman Empire was to late nineteenth century
>> politics: it covers a lot of territory, but no-one takes it
>> seriously anymore.
>
> Whoa, really? And I - naive as I am - thought an operating
> system that has a 95% market penetration must have /some/
> economical relevance at least. Now you're telling me nobody
> except me takes it seriously anymore?
>
> That's what I love about this newsgroup - you get the inside
> scoop from real practitioners. And for free!
>
> Thanks, man! Anyone wants my LispWorks Windows license?
No, thank you. Really, I wouldn't know what to do with it. Last time
I was forced to touch a MS-Windows system was six months ago, when I
had to go to a cybercafe. And even then, I first installed cygwin to
be able to use it... Last time I programmed for MS-Windows was more
than fifteen years ago, I hardly even remember anything about it.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On 7 May, 00:03, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Microsoft Windows is to
> computing as the Ottoman Empire was to late nineteenth century politics:
> it covers a lot of territory, but no-one takes it seriously anymore.
He he , this goes to my quotes file.
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
>>
>>> I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of CL that is
>>> dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender.
>>
>> How is that different from C/C++?
>
> With standard C plus standard POSIX, you're pretty much certain that
> your app will run anywhere important. You're not certain that it'll run
> fast or particularly well, and of course there are those edge cases that
> need to be taken care of--but my perception is that C+POSIX is much more
> reliable a platform than Common Lisp.
In a world of closed source, proprietary OS like we had 20 years ago,
yes.
In a world of free software, easily downloadable from the Net, and
installable on any machine, not anymore, C+POSIX is not more reliable
a platform than Common Lisp or anything else. For example, IIRC,
MacOSX 10.5 is delivered to the users with ruby, without gcc.
It's not harder to download darwin ports, and type port install sbcl
to get a CL platform than it is to type port install gcc to get a
C+POSIX one.
I don't have the impression that MS-Windows is delivered to the users
with a C compiler either... Download for download, you can as well
download sbcl or clisp to make your MS-Windows box a programmable
computer.
> It's also much more low-level and much more prone to segfaults and
> security holes. At the moment I'd rather program in non-portable CL
> than in portable C, but that's me.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
In article <··············@pbourguignon.anevia.com>,
···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
> Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
>
> > Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> >>
> >>> I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of CL that is
> >>> dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender.
> >>
> >> How is that different from C/C++?
> >
> > With standard C plus standard POSIX, you're pretty much certain that
> > your app will run anywhere important. You're not certain that it'll run
> > fast or particularly well, and of course there are those edge cases that
> > need to be taken care of--but my perception is that C+POSIX is much more
> > reliable a platform than Common Lisp.
>
> In a world of closed source, proprietary OS like we had 20 years ago,
> yes.
>
> In a world of free software, easily downloadable from the Net, and
> installable on any machine, not anymore, C+POSIX is not more reliable
> a platform than Common Lisp or anything else. For example, IIRC,
> MacOSX 10.5 is delivered to the users with ruby, without gcc.
The development tools are on the Mac OS X installer DVD. You have to
install them.
> It's not harder to download darwin ports, and type port install sbcl
> to get a CL platform than it is to type port install gcc to get a
> C+POSIX one.
>
> I don't have the impression that MS-Windows is delivered to the users
> with a C compiler either... Download for download, you can as well
> download sbcl or clisp to make your MS-Windows box a programmable
> computer.
>
>
> > It's also much more low-level and much more prone to segfaults and
> > security holes. At the moment I'd rather program in non-portable CL
> > than in portable C, but that's me.
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:09:58 +0200, John Thingstad <·······@online.no> wrote:
>>Common Lisp is just a common denominator for Lisp's. Commercial versions
>>like LispWorks and ACL come with large libraries in addition to ANSI
>>Common Lisp.
>
>
> Thats the problem. I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of
> CL that is dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender.
Lock-in is a gray-scale, If you cannot switch from ODB to RDB in a
heavily-caffeinated long weekend we need you extinct.
hth, kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <········@usyd.edu.au> writes:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:09:58 +0200, John Thingstad <·······@online.no> wrote:
>> P� Sun, 04 May 2008 05:08:43 +0200, skrev <·············@gmail.com>:
> [...]
>>> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
>>> definietly not.
>>
>> Of course my LispWorks system supports all of the above..
>> It does not do 'symmetric' multiprocessing if that is what you mean.
>> I might add that none of these things are a part of the C standard either.
>> That hasn't prevented C from being a popular language.
>
> However the libraries to do those things have been standardized.
This is false.
There are some standards, but you have to considerably restrict your
targets to be able to use them.
Even on a single platform like Linux, you've got to choose between
three different API to do multi-threading, for example. And let's not
talk about GUI API!
And while you have some level of POSIX support in linux, unix, macosx
(mach kernel), MS-Windows, BeOS, Haiku, QNX, etc, it is the most
basic common denominator API you can get.
>> Common Lisp is just a common denominator for Lisp's. Commercial versions
>> like LispWorks and ACL come with large libraries in addition to ANSI
>> Common Lisp.
>
> Thats the problem. I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of
> CL that is dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender.
Or you can choose to use libraries that offer some platform
independence, but life won't be easy sometimes.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
From: vanekl
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <fvj8uc$2m9$1@aioe.org>
Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
comm, stream, unicode, thread.
Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
vanekl wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
>
> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>
> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
From: vanekl
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <fvjdpc$p0q$1@aioe.org>
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> vanekl wrote:
>> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>
>>
>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
>> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
>> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>
> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words,
methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>
>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
>> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>
> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure
you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
> kt
>
On 4 Maj, 06:24, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> > vanekl wrote:
> >> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
> >>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> >>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> >>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> >>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> >>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
> >> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
> >> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
> >> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>
> > Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>
> unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words,
> methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>
>
>
> >> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
> >> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>
> > Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
>
> Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure
> you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
>
> > kt
dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham
that
started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million
dollars in 1998.
Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
http://www.paulgraham.com/
http://arclanguage.org/
globalrev wrote:
> On 4 Maj, 06:24, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>
>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>vanekl wrote:
>>>
>>>>Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>>>>>If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>>>>fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>>>>more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>
>>>>>Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>>>>you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>
>>>>IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
>>>>not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
>>>>comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>>
>>>Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>>
>>unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words,
>>methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
>>>>an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>>
>>>Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
>>
>>Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure
>>you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
>>
>>
>>>kt
>
>
> dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham
> that
> started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million
> dollars in 1998.
> Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
He understood, he just could not handle having pointed out to him the
delightful irony of asking for money to help make Lisp usable from
someone who got rich USING Lisp thirteen years ago.
But what should we expect from someone who says "You've had too much to
drink, drive safely."?
:)
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
From: vanekl
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <fvkj8j$aka$2@aioe.org>
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> globalrev wrote:
>> On 4 Maj, 06:24, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> vanekl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>>>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>>>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>
>>>>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>>>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>>
>>>>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
>>>>> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
>>>>> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>>>
>>>> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>>>
>>> unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words,
>>> methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
>>>>> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>>>
>>>> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I
>>>> think.
>>>
>>> Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure
>>> you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
>>>
>>>
>>>> kt
>>
>>
>> dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham
>> that
>> started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million
>> dollars in 1998.
>> Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
>
> He understood, he just could not handle having pointed out to him the
> delightful irony of asking for money to help make Lisp usable from
> someone who got rich USING Lisp thirteen years ago.
>
> But what should we expect from someone who says "You've had too much to
> drink, drive safely."?
>
> :)
>
> kenny
Gawd, next time I'll wink and add 10 smiley faces so the slower members
of the group can catch up.
vanekl wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> globalrev wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Maj, 06:24, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> vanekl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>>>>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>>>>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>>>>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
>>>>>> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
>>>>>> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words,
>>>> methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
>>>>>> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I
>>>>> think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure
>>>> you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> kt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham
>>> that
>>> started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million
>>> dollars in 1998.
>>> Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
>>
>>
>> He understood, he just could not handle having pointed out to him the
>> delightful irony of asking for money to help make Lisp usable from
>> someone who got rich USING Lisp thirteen years ago.
>>
>> But what should we expect from someone who says "You've had too much
>> to drink, drive safely."?
>>
>> :)
>>
>> kenny
>
>
> Gawd, next time I'll wink and add 10 smiley faces so the slower members
> of the group can catch up.
Oh. I see. Yeah, your overall drift did elude me.
Anyway, I see elsewhere you will be in the vanguard of CL's drive to
world domination contributing to (some) Grand Unifying Lisp Web Thingy,
so send along a bit of your clothing and we'll train the hounds on you
as a "friendly".
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, not
>> for the language this time, but for a few libraries: comm, stream,
>> unicode, thread.
>
> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
It's not that it's unusable (that's clearly false, as every project
written in CL clearly demonstrates); it's that it's less usable than
would otherwise be the case. It's not an issue of black-and-white: it's
an issue of lighter vs. darker grey. There was a time when CLOS was not
standardised; as The Art of the Metaobject Protocol demonstrates, it
could always be rolled by hand. Surely you agree that a single
standardised CLOS is better than a dozen similar-but-incompatible OOP
libraries? In the same way, standardising libraries would be useful.
The existing pretty-much-similar sockets libraries should be
standardised. Gray Streams should be standard. Unicode should be the
new standard, with clearly-defined migration paths for legacy encodings
(I'm not up on my Unicode specs--perhaps there are some suggestions
already there). Threading and multi-processing should be standardised.
Something interesting would be standard message-passing based on the
Erlang model. I don't know if there's any agreement that the Erlisp
model is the right way to do this though. It would be nice for CL to be
as far ahead of the curve again as it once was. Garbage collection and
closures are pretty common now; optional and keyword arguments are not
unknown (c.f. Python); macros are at a tipping point (people realise
they need them, and are trying to figure out how to get them in
irregular languages); CLOS-style generic functions are in a similar
position; conditions still haven't caught on; I think that integrating
some of Erlang's features might be a way to do for multiprocessing what
CLOS did for OOP.
>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
>> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>
> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
PG's too busy reinventing the wheel with Arc to do anything for CL.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
People who do technical support for a living are bitter, twisted and
uncharitable. Eight hours a day of telling people what's already in the
manual [...] results in a steady and inexorable progression towards a
state of depressive sociopathy. --dansdata.com
On May 4, 2:44 pm, Majorinc Kazimir <·····@false.false> wrote:
> I do not think so. Lisp is significantly harder to learn than,
> say, Ruby or Lua, and it provides less advantages to average
> programmer than ever.
If you'd said "beginner programmer" then I'd agree that there are
probably easier ways to learn programming than Common Lisp although
even this is partly due to the confusion over what to download rather
than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's
less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not
sufficiently interested in using more powerful programming tools then
I think it's hard to make the argument that Lisp should be dumbed down
for them. As you point out, there are other languages which excel in
this area.
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
From: Joost Diepenmaat
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <87r6chgbi5.fsf@zeekat.nl>
···············@gmail.com writes:
> On May 4, 2:44 pm, Majorinc Kazimir <·····@false.false> wrote:
>> I do not think so. Lisp is significantly harder to learn than,
>> say, Ruby or Lua, and it provides less advantages to average
>> programmer than ever.
>
> If you'd said "beginner programmer" then I'd agree that there are
> probably easier ways to learn programming than Common Lisp although
> even this is partly due to the confusion over what to download rather
> than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's
> less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not
> sufficiently interested in using more powerful programming tools then
> I think it's hard to make the argument that Lisp should be dumbed down
> for them. As you point out, there are other languages which excel in
> this area.
Agreed. I'm also not convinced that Ruby and Lua are a big step
towards closing the gap to good Common Lisp implementations -
especially in the performance area CL kicks ass, and Ruby for example
is mostly "just" a cleaned-up Perl (and Perl also kicks Ruby's ass in
performance). And I am apparently one of the few people here who think
Ruby is quite pretty and likes Perl.
Besides, *fuck* the average programmer. Average programmers should be
in middle management where they can't mess up the code base (much).
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
In article <··············@zeekat.nl>, ·····@zeekat.nl says...
> Besides, *fuck* the average programmer.
Oh my god! Average programmer is of a wrong sex, and even then
he is overweighted with fat glasses. I'd rather go back to C++!
From: Joost Diepenmaat
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <87iqxtg944.fsf@zeekat.nl>
Majorinc Kazimir <·····@false.false> writes:
> In article <··············@zeekat.nl>, ·····@zeekat.nl says...
>
>> Besides, *fuck* the average programmer.
>
> Oh my god! Average programmer is of a wrong sex, and even then
> he is overweighted with fat glasses. I'd rather go back to C++!
Hahaha. Anyway, I don't mind average programmers. As long as they know
what they're doing and stay the hell out of my code (unless I'm the
boss and can tell them how to get better, and fire them if they don't
- I'm not arrogant about much, but I trust my programming instincts).
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
P� Sun, 04 May 2008 20:38:58 +0200, skrev Joost Diepenmaat
<·····@zeekat.nl>:
>
> Besides, *fuck* the average programmer. Average programmers should be
> in middle management where they can't mess up the code base (much).
>
Just like 80% of the population think they drive better than average there
are very few *average* programmers out there :)
Let's call it John's buffoon law..
--------------
John Thingstad
On 5 Maj, 00:54, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> På Sun, 04 May 2008 20:38:58 +0200, skrev Joost Diepenmaat
> <·····@zeekat.nl>:
>
>
>
> > Besides, *fuck* the average programmer. Average programmers should be
> > in middle management where they can't mess up the code base (much).
>
> Just like 80% of the population think they drive better than average there
> are very few *average* programmers out there :)
>
> Let's call it John's buffoon law..
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad
lol so true.
even norwegians say clever stuff sometimes ;) (swedish)
"John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
> Just like 80% of the population think they drive better than average
You know, this is possible, if there are a few really bad drivers.
CL-USER> (defparameter *population* (cons 0 (cons 0 (loop repeat 8 collect 99))))
*POPULATION*
CL-USER> *population*
(0 0 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99)
CL-USER> (defun mean (list) (float (/ (reduce #'+ list) (length list))))
MEAN
CL-USER> (mean *population*)
79.2
CL-USER> (count 79.2 *population* :test '<)
8
CL-USER> (length *population*)
10
CL-USER>
Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no> writes:
>> Just like 80% of the population think they drive better than average
>
> You know, this is possible, if there are a few really bad drivers.
But then the arithmetic mean is a bad average measure... (on data
sets like this, the median is usually a better bet).
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> wrote:
+---------------
| Johan Ur Riise <·····@riise-data.no> writes:
| >> Just like 80% of the population think they drive better than average
| >
| > You know, this is possible, if there are a few really bad drivers.
|
| But then the arithmetic mean is a bad average measure... (on data
| sets like this, the median is usually a better bet).
+---------------
Or maybe Johan just lives here: ;-} ;-}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon
As Garrison Keillor avers continually:
"Lake Wobegon -- where all the women are strong, all the men are
good looking, and all the children are above average, every one."
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> "Lake Wobegon -- where all the women are strong, all the men are
> good looking, and all the children are above average, every one."
:-)
--
(espen)
In article <daadad58-b292-4a26-a63f-35ec24af3450
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ···············@gmail.com
says...
> than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's
> less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not
Average programmer is say, one who mostly rely on available
libraries and only occasionally implement complex algorithms on
his own. His programs might be large but they are mostly made
of simple pieces that need to be connected together without
bugs. I think abstract programming languages provide little
advantage for that kind of job; their advantages show mainly if
one has to develop and test many original and complicated
algorithms - and needs for that decrease due to growing
libraries, databases etc.
It is not fault of the programming language.
Majorinc Kazimir wrote:
> I do not think so. Lisp is significantly harder to learn than,
> say, Ruby or Lua, and it provides less advantages to average
> programmer than ever.
To be fair, that is only half of the story. The other half is that Lisp also
fails to provide advantages for smart programmers who benefit more from
languages like Haskell, OCaml, Scala and F#.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Spiros Bousbouras schrieb:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
At least you guys made it on rank 16 in this <ironic>very
meaningful</ironic> index here:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
And in the "cleaned up" list here on rank 11:
http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/
Not bad, eh ;-)?
--
Eckhard
EL <·············@gmx.de> writes:
> Spiros Bousbouras schrieb:
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
> At least you guys made it on rank 16 in this <ironic>very
> meaningful</ironic> index here:
> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>
> And in the "cleaned up" list here on rank 11:
> http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/
>
> Not bad, eh ;-)?
Notice he had to re-split the Lisp and Scheme categories, in order to
make his list believable - would anyone have accepted a list like that
where Lisp/Scheme ranked in positions close to Fortran and C?
:-)
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> EL <·············@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Spiros Bousbouras schrieb:
>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>
>> At least you guys made it on rank 16 in this <ironic>very
>> meaningful</ironic> index here:
>> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>
>> And in the "cleaned up" list here on rank 11:
>> http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/
>>
>> Not bad, eh ;-)?
>
> Notice he had to re-split the Lisp and Scheme categories, in order to
> make his list believable - would anyone have accepted a list like that
> where Lisp/Scheme ranked in positions close to Fortran and C?
>
> :-)
And I notice a CL in 27th position too. If we added Lisp+Scheme+CL,
the sky's the limit! Actually the first position, but good enough :-)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>> EL <·············@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>>> Spiros Bousbouras schrieb:
>>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>>
>>> At least you guys made it on rank 16 in this <ironic>very
>>> meaningful</ironic> index here:
>>> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>>
>>> And in the "cleaned up" list here on rank 11:
>>> http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/is-tiobe-fatally-flawed/
>>>
>>> Not bad, eh ;-)?
>>
>> Notice he had to re-split the Lisp and Scheme categories, in order to
>> make his list believable - would anyone have accepted a list like that
>> where Lisp/Scheme ranked in positions close to Fortran and C?
>>
>> :-)
>
> And I notice a CL in 27th position too.
Ah, you're talking about the Tiobe site. I was talking about the
"cleaned up" list, which currently places Scheme at #12 and Lisp at #13.
I was the one that originally suggested to the tiobe people that they
combine Lisp and Scheme.
> If we added Lisp+Scheme+CL,
> the sky's the limit! Actually the first position, but good enough :-)
As far as I know, CL is actually included in that mix for the Tiobe
data. It's hard, though, to infer contextually that a particular
instance of "CL" stands for Common Lisp. I read at one point how they
get their data, and that's what led me to make the suggestion to
combine.
I personally place very little faith in numeric measurements like
tiobe's list and LOC measurements, mostly because they can be abused
by both sides of an argument. But for what they're worth (i.e. an
interesting number) they are numbers, and they make possible a narrow
comparison that wouldn't be otherwise available. But take or leave
the list; the guy who wrote the "cleaned up" list (which he apparently
now retracts becase he's seen the light about taking any list too
seriously, including his) was obviously incensed that his own pet
language, Haskell, was rated less popular than APL (which nobody has a
keyboard for anyway :-). Everyone is going to find reasons to hate
the list, and it should be a lesson to those who ask for "proof" that
Lisp is better than something else; it's not going to happen, because
in deconstructing the meaning of the word proof one finds that there
needs to be an observer to the proof/test, and such observation is
always going to be subjective.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
On May 6, 5:43 pm, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> I was the one that originally suggested to the tiobe people that they
> combine Lisp and Scheme.
You're only sin in all those years I'm reading this group.
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 6, 5:43�pm, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>> I was the one that originally suggested to the tiobe people that they
>> combine Lisp and Scheme.
>
> You're only sin in all those years I'm reading this group.
I'm not sure of the meaning of your reply. Are you saying that I
committed an immoral act by suggesting that Scheme and Lisp are
related?
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
On May 6, 9:43 pm, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 6, 5:43 pm, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> >> I was the one that originally suggested to the tiobe people that they
> >> combine Lisp and Scheme.
>
> > You're only sin in all those years I'm reading this group.
>
> I'm not sure of the meaning of your reply. Are you saying that I
> committed an immoral act by suggesting that Scheme and Lisp are
> related?
Immoral yes, but its because you persuaded tiobe that scheme and lisp
are SAME language so they can be aggregated, something that couldn't
be farther from the truth. Tiobe is the index of programming languages
and as soon it started become a index of programming languages WITH
SOME language families the sense was lost. How do I know what part of
lisp popularity comes from scheme and what part comes from lisp. When
that information was lost by aggregation,I stopped fallowing it.
So you did cl a bad favour. But don't worry to much you had a lot of
good karma to spare.
slobodan
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
>
> --
> Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
> 555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
> Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Pascal J. Bourguignon schrieb:
>> Notice he had to re-split the Lisp and Scheme categories, in order to
>> make his list believable - would anyone have accepted a list like that
>> where Lisp/Scheme ranked in positions close to Fortran and C?
>>
>> :-)
>
> And I notice a CL in 27th position too. If we added Lisp+Scheme+CL,
> the sky's the limit! Actually the first position, but good enough :-)
>
Zynically: I thought that Lisp programmers don't need to google that
much for their tools, in order to get something done. Contrahery to the
Java/Python crowd...
So it must really be the interest of newbies that we see here ;-).
--
Eckhard
On May 3, 4:34 pm, Spiros Bousbouras <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
No.
On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:34:44 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive fashionable
> languages resemble Lisp more and more then Lisp's turn should come at
> some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would you say we're close to a
> Lisp boom ?
We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment. If
my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network monitor
applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have 50 megs of
lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update packages.
We should have something akin to a lisp corba daemon or something of the
sort with live updates by logging into the daemon itself. Maybe every
application could do that. That will make things saner.
When lisp can replace say the dhcp client to make my internet go then it
will be relevant to joe user and mr uptight admin.
We need to do more than just fill in the blanks and expect everyone else
to have an epiphany. Let's publish a lisp shell that replaces bash at
least.
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com
Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:34:44 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive fashionable
>> languages resemble Lisp more and more then Lisp's turn should come at
>> some point.
>>
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would you say we're close to a
>> Lisp boom ?
>
> We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment. If
> my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network monitor
> applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have 50 megs of
> lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update packages.
Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
On May 28, 2:54 am, Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:34:44 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
> >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive fashionable
> >> languages resemble Lisp more and more then Lisp's turn should come at
> >> some point.
>
> >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would you say we're close to a
> >> Lisp boom ?
>
> > We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment. If
> > my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network monitor
> > applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have 50 megs of
> > lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update packages.
>
> Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
Because people click on things some of which are in Lisp, some in C,
some in Python, some in Perl, some in Java. We need a daemonized image
or something to that effect.
Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 28, 2:54 am, Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:34:44 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>> >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive fashionable
>> >> languages resemble Lisp more and more then Lisp's turn should come at
>> >> some point.
>>
>> >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would you say we're close to a
>> >> Lisp boom ?
>>
>> > We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment. If
>> > my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network monitor
>> > applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have 50 megs of
>> > lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update packages.
>>
>> Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
>
> Because people click on things some of which are in Lisp, some in C,
> some in Python, some in Perl, some in Java. We need a daemonized image
> or something to that effect.
Yes, it would be helpful to have a small program to pass code to a
running Lisp, although starting other programs from Lisp would work just
as well. This does not require a new architecture though.
Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
>> Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
>
> Because people click on things some of which are in Lisp, some in C,
> some in Python, some in Perl, some in Java. We need a daemonized image
> or something to that effect.
And why do you think it's not what we already have?
Aren't you using X11?
Nothing prevents you do things like that.
(with-open-stream
(stuff #+clisp(ext:run-programm "python"
:arguments (list "stuff-implemented-in-python.py"
"-display" ":0.0"
"-window" py-window-id ; insert the python stuff graphics in that box
)
:input :stream :output :stream))
(send stuf 'some-message some-arg)
(display (some-lisp-stuff) :window lisp-window-id)
(get-from stuff 'some-answer))
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On Thu, 29 May 2008 17:57:58 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
>>
>> Because people click on things some of which are in Lisp, some in C,
>> some in Python, some in Perl, some in Java. We need a daemonized image
>> or something to that effect.
>
> And why do you think it's not what we already have? Aren't you using
> X11?
>
> Nothing prevents you do things like that.
>
> (with-open-stream
> (stuff #+clisp(ext:run-programm "python"
> :arguments (list
> "stuff-implemented-in-python.py"
> "-display" ":0.0"
> "-window" py-window-id ;
> insert the python stuff
> graphics in that box )
> :input :stream :output :stream))
> (send stuf 'some-message some-arg)
> (display (some-lisp-stuff) :window lisp-window-id) (get-from stuff
> 'some-answer))
you know that is just gorgeous.
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com
http;//ntltrmllgnc.stumbleupon.com
Dihydrogen Monoxide wrote:
> Because people click on things some of which are in Lisp, some in C,
> some in Python, some in Perl, some in Java. We need a daemonized image
> or something to that effect.
In that sense, you need a common language run-time. But Lisp has far more
serious deficiencies than its difficulty of interoperating with far more
popular languages like OCaml.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
On 28 May, 07:54, Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:34:44 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
> >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive fashionable
> >> languages resemble Lisp more and more then Lisp's turn should come at
> >> some point.
>
> >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would you say we're close to a
> >> Lisp boom ?
>
> > We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment. If
> > my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network monitor
> > applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have 50 megs of
> > lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update packages.
>
> Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
All my Firefox windows are forced to run in the same image. All my
Gnome Terminal windows are forced to run in the same image. When one
Firefox tab crashes, all my Firefox windows disappear. When one Gnome
Terminal window crashes, all my Gnome Terminal windows disappear. The
latter also kills any subprocesses of the terminals; e.g. Emacs or
Thunderbird.
That's why you might not want every application on your computer to
run in the same image.
On Fri, 30 May 2008 02:14:12 -0700, nathan.baum wrote:
> On 28 May, 07:54, Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:34:44 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>> >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive fashionable
>> >> languages resemble Lisp more and more then Lisp's turn should come
>> >> at some point.
>>
>> >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would you say we're close
>> >> to a Lisp boom ?
>>
>> > We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment.
>> > If my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network
>> > monitor applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have
>> > 50 megs of lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update
>> > packages.
>>
>> Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
>
> All my Firefox windows are forced to run in the same image. All my Gnome
> Terminal windows are forced to run in the same image. When one Firefox
> tab crashes, all my Firefox windows disappear. When one Gnome Terminal
> window crashes, all my Gnome Terminal windows disappear. The latter also
> kills any subprocesses of the terminals; e.g. Emacs or Thunderbird.
>
> That's why you might not want every application on your computer to run
> in the same image.
That's the logic that's currently driving the mania for "virtual
machines" and "hypervisors": your operating system might crash, and that
might take down your other applications. Clearly there's a continuum of
risk versus performance that can be traded off in many ways. I'm quite
happy to run all of my applications under one FreeBSD image: it's as
solid as a rock. Similarly, back when I used emacs, I was more than
happy to have the rapid start-up of emacsclient, which connected to an
existing instance, rather then wait through a start-from-scratch.
There's a quality issue too, of course. I've never had emacs or gnome-
terminal crash on me, but Firfox does it often enough.
Cheers,
--
Andrew
Andrew Reilly wrote:
> That's the logic that's currently driving the mania for "virtual
> machines" and "hypervisors": your operating system might crash, and that
> might take down your other applications. Clearly there's a continuum of
> risk versus performance that can be traded off in many ways. I'm quite
> happy to run all of my applications under one FreeBSD image: it's as
> solid as a rock.
Sure but you are misrepresenting the benefits of both VMs and virtualized
OSs.
By far the biggest benefit of virtualization is the ability to migrate
virtual machines between physical machines and duplicate them.
XenEnterprise makes this extremely easy and it is incredibly useful in a
variety of industrial settings (not least banks). For example, one coder
can build a development environment with the appropriate tools in it and
then replicate that VM for the other coders to use without them having to
worry about incompatible versions and so forth.
By far the biggest benefit of .NET as a VM is its robust concurrent GC and
common language run-time that allow programs to be written in multiple
languages using only high-level interop. OCaml, Haskell, Lisp and Scheme
all lack such a foundation and, consequently, trying to use them to build
anything substantial is just building on sand. That is even more important
in the multicore era, where Java has become the only language outside
Microsoft Windows that is capable of exploiting multicores effectively.
> Similarly, back when I used emacs, I was more than
> happy to have the rapid start-up of emacsclient, which connected to an
> existing instance, rather then wait through a start-from-scratch.
> There's a quality issue too, of course. I've never had emacs or gnome-
> terminal crash on me, but Firfox does it often enough.
Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all the
time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
P� Fri, 30 May 2008 12:13:31 +0200, skrev Jon Harrop
<···@ffconsultancy.com>:
> Andrew Reilly wrote:
>> That's the logic that's currently driving the mania for "virtual
>> machines" and "hypervisors": your operating system might crash, and that
>> might take down your other applications. Clearly there's a continuum of
>> risk versus performance that can be traded off in many ways. I'm quite
>> happy to run all of my applications under one FreeBSD image: it's as
>> solid as a rock.
>
> Sure but you are misrepresenting the benefits of both VMs and virtualized
> OSs.
>
> By far the biggest benefit of virtualization is the ability to migrate
> virtual machines between physical machines and duplicate them.
> XenEnterprise makes this extremely easy and it is incredibly useful in a
> variety of industrial settings (not least banks). For example, one coder
> can build a development environment with the appropriate tools in it and
> then replicate that VM for the other coders to use without them having to
> worry about incompatible versions and so forth.
>
> By far the biggest benefit of .NET as a VM is its robust concurrent GC
> and
> common language run-time that allow programs to be written in multiple
> languages using only high-level interop. OCaml, Haskell, Lisp and Scheme
> all lack such a foundation and, consequently, trying to use them to build
> anything substantial is just building on sand. That is even more
> important
> in the multicore era, where Java has become the only language outside
> Microsoft Windows that is capable of exploiting multicores effectively.
>
LispWorks 6 will have support for symmetric multiprocessing I undestand.
It has always had reliable GC.
>> Similarly, back when I used emacs, I was more than
>> happy to have the rapid start-up of emacsclient, which connected to an
>> existing instance, rather then wait through a start-from-scratch.
>> There's a quality issue too, of course. I've never had emacs or gnome-
>> terminal crash on me, but Firfox does it often enough.
>
> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all
> the
> time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
>
???
I have used Emacs for 20 years and have never had it crash on me yet.
--
--------------
John Thingstad
From: Patrick May
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2iqwvz6j5.fsf@spe.com>
"John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
> P� Fri, 30 May 2008 12:13:31 +0200, skrev Jon Harrop
> <···@ffconsultancy.com>:
>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing
>> all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
>> perspective.
>
> ???
> I have used Emacs for 20 years and have never had it crash on me yet.
That is my experience as well. Emacs is the most stable
application I've ever used. Also, the user interface is fantastic.
If the OP thinks it's unfriendly, maybe Emacs just chooses its friends
carefully.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
Patrick May kirjoitti:
> "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
>> P� Fri, 30 May 2008 12:13:31 +0200, skrev Jon Harrop
>> <···@ffconsultancy.com>:
>>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing
>>> all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
>>> perspective.
>> ???
>> I have used Emacs for 20 years and have never had it crash on me yet.
>
> That is my experience as well. Emacs is the most stable
> application I've ever used.
Sadly this does not seem to be true any more. On my Ubuntu
Hardy, Emacs has lately gone unresponsive enough times to start
being irritating. It may not be an Emacs problem strictly speaking,
but Emacs seems to be the only application suffering from it.
--
Pertti
On 2 Giu, 11:25, Pertti Kellomäki <················@tut.fi> wrote:
> On my Ubuntu
> Hardy, Emacs has lately gone unresponsive enough times to start
> being irritating.
You probably use the GUI version. If you want Emacs (or any editor
worth the name) to be both stable and fast, simply use it in console
mode.
Emacs doesn't need a mouse (or you're using it wrong).
-PM
P� Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:46:17 +0200, skrev <········@gmail.com>:
> On 2 Giu, 11:25, Pertti Kellom�ki <················@tut.fi> wrote:
>> On my Ubuntu
>> Hardy, Emacs has lately gone unresponsive enough times to start
>> being irritating.
>
> You probably use the GUI version. If you want Emacs (or any editor
> worth the name) to be both stable and fast, simply use it in console
> mode.
> Emacs doesn't need a mouse (or you're using it wrong).
>
> -PM
??
That's about the worst advice I have heard yet.
You can set the mark and select text with the left mouse button.
Double clicking the right button cuts the text. Clicking the center button
pastes it back.
(On my machine you may have a different setup.)
I mostly use control codes except for selecting text and for the scroll
mouse button.
If for no other reason to get more text on the screen I use the GUI
version.
I also have in my site-init.el file
(setq inhibit-splash-screen t)
(tool-bar-mode nil)
(scroll-bar-mode nil)
(setq default-frame-alist '((width . 120)
(height . 58)
(top . 0)
(left . 0))
For more screen estate.
I have a P6 (Dual core 820 2.8 GHz) under Windows XP and have none of
these speed/stabillity problems.
I have used version from 18 to 22 on sun 360 (Berkley Unix), VAX 3100
(Ultrix), P2 Windows 95/Redhat Linux as well. The ONLY thing that is slow
is AUCTex preview mode.
By far the worst problem is setting up the system for windows rather than
unix utilities under Windows.
Things like:
(setq ps-lpr-command "gsprint.exe")
(setq ps-printer-name t)
(setq-default ispell-alternate-dictionary "C:\\Program
Files\\aspell\\dict\\")
(setq-default ispell-really-aspell t)
(setq ispell-dictionary "english")
--------------
John Thingstad
On 2 Giu, 14:17, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> That's about the worst advice I have heard yet.
Mac + iTerm + fullscreen mode + emacs (and sometimes vi) console mode
is _perfect_ for me.
-PM
On Jun 2, 4:22 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2 Giu, 14:17, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>
> > That's about the worst advice I have heard yet.
>
> Mac + iTerm + fullscreen mode + emacs (and sometimes vi) console mode
> is _perfect_ for me.
Were the 70's really so great that you don't want to leave, even for
your development environment?!?!?!
Seriously, install the newly open-sourced MCL 5.3 and join us in the
1990's. The music's maybe not as good, but that's customizable -- I
speak from experience when I say that MCL's Fred is compatible with
Minnie Riperton playing in iTunes.
On 2 Giu, 16:57, "Thomas F. Burdick" <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Were the 70's really so great that you don't want to leave, even for
> your development environment?!?!?!
If I need to get work done, nothing beats a simple environment.
No distraction at all!
Just wonderful!!
-PM
In article
<····································@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
········@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2 Giu, 16:57, "Thomas F. Burdick" <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Were the 70's really so great that you don't want to leave, even for
> > your development environment?!?!?!
>
> If I need to get work done, nothing beats a simple environment.
> No distraction at all!
> Just wonderful!!
>
> -PM
Then use Zmacs. Between a listener and a documentation browser.
http://lispm.dyndns.org/lisp/pics/three-activity-development-configuration.png
What beats that?
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
On 2 Giu, 17:57, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> Then use Zmacs. Between a listener and a documentation browser.
Too many scrollbars, too many split regions, too distracting, sorry...
-PM
P� Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:27:15 +0200, skrev <········@gmail.com>:
> On 2 Giu, 16:57, "Thomas F. Burdick" <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Were the 70's really so great that you don't want to leave, even for
>> your development environment?!?!?!
>
> If I need to get work done, nothing beats a simple environment.
> No distraction at all!
> Just wonderful!!
>
> -PM
hmm.. ed.. ed is the stadard UNIX editor.. ;)
http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html
--------------
John Thingstad
On 2 Giu, 19:19, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> hmm.. ed.. ed is the stadard UNIX editor.. ;)http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html
There's no point in putting it into ridiculous.
I mean it seriously, seriously.
-PM
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:22 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 2 Giu, 14:17, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>>
>>> That's about the worst advice I have heard yet.
>> Mac + iTerm + fullscreen mode + emacs (and sometimes vi) console mode
>> is _perfect_ for me.
>
> Were the 70's really so great that you don't want to leave, even for
> your development environment?!?!?!
>
> Seriously, install the newly open-sourced MCL 5.3 and join us in the
> 1990's. The music's maybe not as good, but that's customizable -- I
> speak from experience when I say that MCL's Fred is compatible with
> Minnie Riperton playing in iTunes.
MCL 5.3? I thought that was MCL 5.2. Or is there already a newer version
out?
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/
On Jun 2, 5:09 pm, Pascal Costanza <····@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 4:22 pm, ········@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 2 Giu, 14:17, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>
> >>> That's about the worst advice I have heard yet.
> >> Mac + iTerm + fullscreen mode + emacs (and sometimes vi) console mode
> >> is _perfect_ for me.
>
> > Were the 70's really so great that you don't want to leave, even for
> > your development environment?!?!?!
>
> > Seriously, install the newly open-sourced MCL 5.3 and join us in the
> > 1990's. The music's maybe not as good, but that's customizable -- I
> > speak from experience when I say that MCL's Fred is compatible with
> > Minnie Riperton playing in iTunes.
>
> MCL 5.3? I thought that was MCL 5.2. Or is there already a newer version
> out?
I'm pretty sure my Listener says something along the lines of:
Welcome to Macintosh Typo Lisp Version 5,3!
?
However MCL and MTL versions 5.2 and 5,3 both have a nice IDE that
works correctly with (1) a French keyboard as much as a US one, and
(2) Minnie as much as Biggie.
Damn Lispworks doesn't let me type ~ and I heard it complaining that
"Lovin' You" was boring and played out.
"John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
> P� Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:46:17 +0200, skrev <········@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2 Giu, 11:25, Pertti Kellom�ki <················@tut.fi> wrote:
>>> On my Ubuntu
>>> Hardy, Emacs has lately gone unresponsive enough times to start
>>> being irritating.
>>
>> You probably use the GUI version. If you want Emacs (or any editor
>> worth the name) to be both stable and fast, simply use it in console
>> mode.
>> Emacs doesn't need a mouse (or you're using it wrong).
>>
>> -PM
>
> ??
> That's about the worst advice I have heard yet.
> You can set the mark and select text with the left mouse button.
> Double clicking the right button cuts the text. Clicking the center
> button pastes it back.
Of course, but users of ratpoison like me won't do it with a mouse.
C-SPC;
C-f, C-b, C-s, etc;
M-w
C-w
C-y
is what we use.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
> "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
>
>> På Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:46:17 +0200, skrev <········@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 2 Giu, 11:25, Pertti Kellomäki <················@tut.fi> wrote:
>>>> On my Ubuntu
>>>> Hardy, Emacs has lately gone unresponsive enough times to start
>>>> being irritating.
>>>
>>> You probably use the GUI version. If you want Emacs (or any editor
>>> worth the name) to be both stable and fast, simply use it in console
>>> mode.
>>> Emacs doesn't need a mouse (or you're using it wrong).
>>>
>>> -PM
>>
>> ??
>> That's about the worst advice I have heard yet.
>> You can set the mark and select text with the left mouse button.
>> Double clicking the right button cuts the text. Clicking the center
>> button pastes it back.
>
> Of course, but users of ratpoison like me won't do it with a mouse.
>
> C-SPC;
> C-f, C-b, C-s, etc;
> M-w
> C-w
> C-y
>
> is what we use.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__
No StumpWM? I finally tried it the other day and it seems to have better
behavior than Ratpoison with regard to windows, frames, and groups, plus
being easier to customize. Got sloppy mouse focus too, which is a
blessing (although I never split the screen in my Ratpoison heyday). I'd
probably use StumpWM over Ratpoison these days.
Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> No StumpWM? I finally tried it the other day and it seems to have better
> behavior than Ratpoison with regard to windows, frames, and groups, plus
> being easier to customize. Got sloppy mouse focus too, which is a
> blessing (although I never split the screen in my Ratpoison heyday). I'd
> probably use StumpWM over Ratpoison these days.
Yes, that's on my todo list, to switch to StumpWM.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
> Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> No StumpWM? I finally tried it the other day and it seems to have better
>> behavior than Ratpoison with regard to windows, frames, and groups, plus
>> being easier to customize. Got sloppy mouse focus too, which is a
>> blessing (although I never split the screen in my Ratpoison heyday). I'd
>> probably use StumpWM over Ratpoison these days.
>
> Yes, that's on my todo list, to switch to StumpWM.
I hope you like it.
········@gmail.com wrote:
> You probably use the GUI version. If you want Emacs (or any editor
> worth the name) to be both stable and fast, simply use it in console
> mode.
> Emacs doesn't need a mouse (or you're using it wrong).
I did live in the Bronze Age, so I rarely use the menus or other
modern embellishments of Emacs. However, in this day and age any
editor where pointing and clicking with the mouse cursor does
not move the text cursor just does not cut it.
The fact that one needs to explicitly instruct Emacs *not* to
use the windowing system (at least on Linux + X11) should be
a strong signal.
--
Pertti
From: Giorgos Keramidas
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <87od6cvfh1.fsf@kobe.laptop>
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:29:16 +0300, Pertti Kellom�ki <················@tut.fi> wrote:
> ········@gmail.com wrote:
>> You probably use the GUI version. If you want Emacs (or any editor
>> worth the name) to be both stable and fast, simply use it in console
>> mode. Emacs doesn't need a mouse (or you're using it wrong).
>
> I did live in the Bronze Age, so I rarely use the menus or other
> modern embellishments of Emacs. However, in this day and age any
> editor where pointing and clicking with the mouse cursor does
> not move the text cursor just does not cut it.
If point-and-click is all you are missing from `emacs -nw' sessions,
then just add to your ~/.emacs file
(when (not (display-graphic-p))
(xterm-mouse-mode 1))
and off you go point-and-clicking all you want :)
Pertti Kellom�ki wrote:
> Patrick May kirjoitti:
>> "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
>>> P� Fri, 30 May 2008 12:13:31 +0200, skrev Jon Harrop
>>> <···@ffconsultancy.com>:
>>>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing
>>>> all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
>>>> perspective.
>>> ???
>>> I have used Emacs for 20 years and have never had it crash on me yet.
>>
>> That is my experience as well. Emacs is the most stable
>> application I've ever used.
>
> Sadly this does not seem to be true any more. On my Ubuntu
> Hardy, Emacs has lately gone unresponsive enough times to start
> being irritating. It may not be an Emacs problem strictly speaking,
> but Emacs seems to be the only application suffering from it.
Yes. I actually switched to KWrite because Emacs is so unstable (and
ridiculously slow).
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
From: Sohail Somani
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <VOZ%j.62$Gn.13@edtnps92>
John Thingstad wrote:
> P� Fri, 30 May 2008 12:13:31 +0200, skrev Jon Harrop
> <···@ffconsultancy.com>:
>
>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing
>> all the
>> time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
>>
>
> ???
> I have used Emacs for 20 years and have never had it crash on me yet.
I once used a single Emacs instance for 1.5 month straight. It crashed
when I upgraded the kernel and tried to use ERC (I think.) Compare that
to my digital TV provider who has weekly downtime. I think there is a
Java programmer or a Windows machine involved somewhere.
Sohail Somani <······@taggedtype.net> writes:
> John Thingstad wrote:
>> P� Fri, 30 May 2008 12:13:31 +0200, skrev Jon Harrop
>> <···@ffconsultancy.com>:
>>
>
>>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing
>>> all the
>>> time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
>>>
>> ???
>> I have used Emacs for 20 years and have never had it crash on me yet.
>
> I once used a single Emacs instance for 1.5 month straight.
Here is my record:
.EMACS: Up 410d 22h 6m 26s (Wed 2007-04-18 19:09:33), 14 buffers, 0 files
(and there's another running already 93 days).
> It crashed
> when I upgraded the kernel and tried to use ERC (I think.) Compare
> that to my digital TV provider who has weekly downtime. I think there
> is a Java programmer or a Windows machine involved somewhere.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
"John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
>
>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing
>> all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
>> perspective.
>
> ???
> I have used Emacs for 20 years and have never had it crash on me yet.
I've had it crash a few times. Not more than once or twice a year,
though. No doubt it's due to one of the several packages I use.
Still, the Black Frog is, as always, wrong: emacs is relatively stable,
crashes almost never and has an extremely user-friendly interface. It
does not have a _user-familiar_ interface, but that's simply because
emacs predates the interfaces in common use. But it's extremely
friendly and discoverable: the tutorial teaches everything one needs in
order to learn everything about emacs.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
I'm still waiting for the 'Honk if you hate Microsoft' [bumper sticker],
but that might get annoying, everyone honking at you.
--from a slashdot.org post
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:13:31 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all
> the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
> perspective.
What version did you use, I had Emacs on an Amiga 1200. Not an issue ever.
Wait is it the Winderz version?
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com
http;//ntltrmllgnc.stumbleupon.com
Dihydrogen Monoxide wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:13:31 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all
>> the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
>> perspective.
>
> What version did you use, I had Emacs on an Amiga 1200. Not an issue ever.
>
> Wait is it the Winderz version?
Stock Debian Linux versions over the past decade. None of them have ever
been reliable on a variety of different computers for me. I don't know of
anyone IRL who would claim that Emacs is "good software" by any stretch of
the imagination.
Just Googling for "emacs crash" makes it painfully obvious that a great many
other users have also found it to be unstable.
Give me Zap under RISC OS any day of the week and twice on Sundays...
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Jon Harrop wrote:
> Just Googling for "emacs crash" makes it painfully obvious that a great many
> other users have also found it to be unstable.
"harrop crash" and "jon stupid" also gives an awful lot of results.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> Just Googling for "emacs crash" makes it painfully obvious that a great
>> many other users have also found it to be unstable.
>
> "harrop crash" and "jon stupid" also gives an awful lot of results.
Actually "harrop crash" gives two results and your post is one of them.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>>> Just Googling for "emacs crash" makes it painfully obvious that a great
>>> many other users have also found it to be unstable.
>>
>> "harrop crash" and "jon stupid" also gives an awful lot of results.
>
> Actually "harrop crash" gives two results and your post is one of them.
How many searches yield 50% relevant results?
Paul Donnelly wrote:
> Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
>> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>>>> Just Googling for "emacs crash" makes it painfully obvious that a great
>>>> many other users have also found it to be unstable.
>>>
>>> "harrop crash" and "jon stupid" also gives an awful lot of results.
>>
>> Actually "harrop crash" gives two results and your post is one of them.
>
> How many searches yield 50% relevant results?
Is a circular reference relevant?
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Jon Harrop wrote:
> Paul Donnelly wrote:
>> Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
>>> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>>>>> Just Googling for "emacs crash" makes it painfully obvious that a great
>>>>> many other users have also found it to be unstable.
>>>> "harrop crash" and "jon stupid" also gives an awful lot of results.
>>> Actually "harrop crash" gives two results and your post is one of them.
>> How many searches yield 50% relevant results?
>
> Is a circular reference relevant?
Wow, you really think that googling is a scientific methodology? Wow!
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/
Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
> Dihydrogen Monoxide wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:13:31 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
>>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all
>>> the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
>>> perspective.
>>
>> What version did you use, I had Emacs on an Amiga 1200. Not an issue ever.
>>
>> Wait is it the Winderz version?
>
> Stock Debian Linux versions over the past decade. None of them have ever
> been reliable on a variety of different computers for me. I don't know of
> anyone IRL who would claim that Emacs is "good software" by any stretch of
> the imagination.
>
> Just Googling for "emacs crash" makes it painfully obvious that a great many
> other users have also found it to be unstable.
A lot of users also use beta or even plain development (from cvs)
versions of emacs. They shouldn't complain about crashes in those
cases, but report bugs, or debug them themselves.
The stable releases of emacs don't crash at all, in my experience.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:13:31 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all
> the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface
> perspective.
What version did you use, I had Emacs on an Amiga 1200. Not an issue ever.
Wait is it the Winderz version?
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com
http;//ntltrmllgnc.stumbleupon.com
Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all the
> time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
Compare: Helicopters are very poor aircraft. They are unstable,
crashing all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user
interface perspective.
It's almost meaningless to talk about an interface being user
unfriendly (not that many people working in human-computer interaction
use the phrase "user friendly" in any case--it's too vague) without
context, which includes a population of users and a set of tasks they
want to accomplish. It's possible to say that Emacs is appropriate
for a relatively small, specialized set of users, that it takes a
relatively long time to become proficient using it, and that it's good
for some kinds of tasks (e.g., programming in some languages),
probably very bad for others (e.g., freehand drawing). But so what?
We all know that already.
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:58:40 -0400, ·······@ncsu.edu (Rob St. Amant)
wrote:
>Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
>
>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all the
>> time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
>
>Compare: Helicopters are very poor aircraft. They are unstable,
>crashing all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user
>interface perspective.
Actually helicopters have an excellent safety record.
Unlike every military helicopter crash - many of which can be blamed
on conditions under which civilians wouldn't fly - CNN doesn't report
most light planes crashes. Both in real numbers and percentage-wise,
more planes crash than helicopters.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> writes:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:58:40 -0400, ·······@ncsu.edu (Rob St. Amant)
> wrote:
>
>>Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
>>
>>> Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all the
>>> time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
>>
>>Compare: Helicopters are very poor aircraft. They are unstable,
>>crashing all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user
>>interface perspective.
>
> Actually helicopters have an excellent safety record.
>
> Unlike every military helicopter crash - many of which can be blamed
> on conditions under which civilians wouldn't fly - CNN doesn't report
> most light planes crashes. Both in real numbers and percentage-wise,
> more planes crash than helicopters.
That means both assertions above are pretty much wrong, then. (It's
obvious that I have no knowledge of helicopters; thanks for the info.)
George Neuner wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:58:40 -0400, ·······@ncsu.edu (Rob St. Amant)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jon Harrop <···@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Emacs is very poor quality software, IMHO. It is unstable, crashing all the
>>>time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user interface perspective.
>>
>>Compare: Helicopters are very poor aircraft. They are unstable,
>>crashing all the time, and incredibly user unfriendly from a user
>>interface perspective.
>
>
> Actually helicopters have an excellent safety record.
>
> Unlike every military helicopter crash - many of which can be blamed
> on conditions under which civilians wouldn't fly - CNN doesn't report
> most light planes crashes. Both in real numbers and percentage-wise,
> more planes crash than helicopters.
Very interesting. Do you suppose that is because the beast requires more
attention to fly at all so one gets fewer careless errors, or because
one just tends to get a better pilot because of the greater challenge,
or ___________?
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
> Very interesting. Do you suppose that is because the beast requires more
> attention to fly at all so one gets fewer careless errors, or because one
> just tends to get a better pilot because of the greater challenge, or
> ___________?
Probably good pilots, good maintenance, and the fact that it is possible to
land it with zero horizontal speed (note that a helicopter can perfectly
land even in case of a motor failure).
Nicolas
[Drifting *way* OT...]
Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
+---------------
| Probably good pilots, good maintenance, and the fact that it is
| possible to land it with zero horizontal speed (note that a
| helicopter can perfectly land even in case of a motor failure).
+---------------
*IF* the craft has enough speed *AND* altitude and *IF* the pilot
recognizes the engine failure *AND* initiates autorotation within,
oh... ONE TO TWO SECONDS!! Really. Else you're toast.
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/helicopters
Learning to Fly Helicopters
...
In a helicopter, by contrast, if the blades spin down more than
10-15% from their normal velocity, there is no way to convert potential
or kinetic energy into spinning such that the helicopter will start
to fly again. If you can't restart your engine, therefore, your
helicopter can very quickly become a rock.
In a turbine-powered helicopter like a Bell 206 JetRangers the
blades are heavy and the blades won't slow down for several seconds
after an engine failure. In the flyweight Robinson, however, after
an engine failure you have no more than 1.2 seconds to take exactly
the right actions or the helicopter cannot be recovered.
...
http://www.helicopterflight.net/autorotation.htm
...
Rotor RPM - This is the single most important ingredient of a
successful autorotation. Without sufficient rotor RPM you will
become something like a brick. In the event of an actual engine
failure, you have a very limited amount of time to get the
collective fully down to regain any lost rotor RPM, and there
*will* be some to gain.
...
http://www.copters.com/pilot/autorotation.html
...
Common Mistakes
...
Failure to Lower Collective all the way down
If the pilot forgets to lower collective and this is a real
engine failure, it's a fatal mistake. Lowering collective is
the most important part of doing an autorotation. ...
http://www.helinews.com.au/articles/view/279/
Autorotations: The physics of the autorotation explained
...
Entry
This is the transition from powered flight to autorotative
flight, and is the most critical of the four phases. Not the
most difficult, but definitely the most critical. If you don't
get the collective down quickly enough to prevent the R/RPM
decaying to a point where its recovery is impossible, it's all
over, regardless of your skill levels in the remaining phases.
...
Also, a true zero-forward-velocity landing in autorotation is
extremely difficult, since you have to maintain sufficient forward
velocity (typ. ~60 kts) until *just* before landing (when you perform
the "flare" and trade forward velocity for rotor speed and vertical
slowing). A "good" autorotation landing is any one in which your
forward velocity is less than ~20 kts when the skids touch down.
Finally, autorotation requires that you either be high enough *and*
fast enough (e.g., >500' & 60 kts) or else low enough *and* slow enough
(<10' & ~0 kts) to enter autorotation and still land safely. There's
a rather large schmoo of "deadly" height-velocity combinations for
which autorotation is impossible, and unfortunately some kinds of
helicopter operations are done routinely in this regime [e.g., heavy
lifting of equipment onto buildings]. Again quoting Philip Greenspun:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/helicopters
...
This all sounds good until you look at the "deadman's curve".
The marketing literature for helicopters says "if the engine
fails, you can autorotate down to a smooth landing." The owner's
manual, however, contains a little chart of flight conditions
from which it is impossible to landing without at least bending
the helicopter. Unfortunately these conditions are the very ones
in which nearly all helicopters seem to operate. If you're above
500', for example, you're pretty safe. But TV station helicopters
are often lower than that when filming. Flying along at 65 knots
at any altitude is safe, but if the camera needs the pilot to
hover the helicopter slows to a crawl and may get under the
"height-velocity diagram", as the FAA calls the deadman's curve.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> [Drifting *way* OT...]
>
> Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Probably good pilots, good maintenance, and the fact that it is
> | possible to land it with zero horizontal speed (note that a
> | helicopter can perfectly land even in case of a motor failure).
> +---------------
>
> *IF* the craft has enough speed *AND* altitude and *IF* the pilot
> recognizes the engine failure *AND* initiates autorotation within,
> oh... ONE TO TWO SECONDS!! Really. Else you're toast.
> [snipped more detailed explanations]
Thanks for the interesting post. I have to be more careful next time:-)
Nicolas
Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>
>>Very interesting. Do you suppose that is because the beast requires more
>>attention to fly at all so one gets fewer careless errors, or because one
>>just tends to get a better pilot because of the greater challenge, or
>>___________?
>
>
> Probably good pilots, good maintenance, and the fact that it is possible to
> land it with zero horizontal speed (note that a helicopter can perfectly
> land even in case of a motor failure).
I read about autorotation in a book by an ex-Vietnam chopper pilot,
never quite got it. :)
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:25:41 -0400, Ken Tilton
<···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>Nicolas Neuss wrote:
>> Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Very interesting. Do you suppose that is because the beast requires more
>>>attention to fly at all so one gets fewer careless errors, or because one
>>>just tends to get a better pilot because of the greater challenge, or
>>>___________?
>>
>>
>> Probably good pilots, good maintenance, and the fact that it is possible to
>> land it with zero horizontal speed (note that a helicopter can perfectly
>> land even in case of a motor failure).
>
>I read about autorotation in a book by an ex-Vietnam chopper pilot,
>never quite got it. :)
ChickenHawk? Great book!
The idea of autorotation is to quickly set the rotors to minimum pitch
angle to conserve momentum - as long as the rotors are spinning fast
enough you have lift. You nose down slightly to keep forward motion
while keeping the glide angle shallow to avoid spilling the air
cushion under the rotors (every aircraft has a "perfect" glide angle
that achieves maximum distance - the pilot is expected to know it).
As you approach the ground, you pull the nose up and briefly max the
rotor pitch to quickly stop your forward motion and then quickly
reduce pitch again and level off to settle onto the ground.
It is quite a difficult maneuver to master. I fly light planes myself
- the plane maneuver is quite similar but the helicopter version
happens a lot faster and is a whole lot scarier. The typical light
plane at optimum glide angle has a 100:1 glide ratio - 100 feet
forward for 1 foot down. The typical chopper has a 10:1 glide ratio.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:55:10 -0400, George Neuner
<·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>The idea of autorotation is to quickly set the rotors to minimum pitch
>angle to conserve momentum - as long as the rotors are spinning fast
>enough you have lift. You nose down slightly to keep forward motion
>while keeping the glide angle shallow to avoid spilling the air
>cushion under the rotors (every aircraft has a "perfect" glide angle
>that achieves maximum distance - the pilot is expected to know it).
>As you approach the ground, you pull the nose up and briefly max the
>rotor pitch to quickly stop your forward motion and then quickly
>reduce pitch again and level off to settle onto the ground.
Forgot to mention that some few helicopter models can turn their
rotors into negative pitch. This capability allows very high
performance maneuvers and is generally only on air-to-air capable
combat choppers and modified stunt choppers (but is also on at least
one French civilian model).
In an autorotation, a slight negative pitch will greatly increase the
glide ratio. Negative rotor pitch transforms a helicopter into an
autogyro - a related but different form of rotor-craft that has much
better engine off flight characteristics. In an autogyro, forward
momentum helps to maintain rotor speed so gyros have much better
optimum glide ratios - 40-50:1 rather than 10:1.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:25:41 -0400, Ken Tilton
> <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Nicolas Neuss wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Very interesting. Do you suppose that is because the beast requires more
>>>>attention to fly at all so one gets fewer careless errors, or because one
>>>>just tends to get a better pilot because of the greater challenge, or
>>>>___________?
>>>
>>>
>>>Probably good pilots, good maintenance, and the fact that it is possible to
>>>land it with zero horizontal speed (note that a helicopter can perfectly
>>>land even in case of a motor failure).
>>
>>I read about autorotation in a book by an ex-Vietnam chopper pilot,
>>never quite got it. :)
>
>
> ChickenHawk? Great book!
I liked the part where he was too overloaded (but it was a tight spot so
no one exactly wanted to get off) so he through the thing off a cliff
that happened to be just there generating enough lift from the drop to
bootstrap a flight, or something like that.
Oh, and the ill-fated "joy ride" to take an old rotor or two out to sea
-- those rotors were not too old to fly in the wash. Ouch. Talk about a
tiger by the tail...
>
> The idea of autorotation is to quickly set the rotors to minimum pitch
> angle to conserve momentum - as long as the rotors are spinning fast
> enough you have lift. You nose down slightly to keep forward motion
> while keeping the glide angle shallow to avoid spilling the air
> cushion under the rotors (every aircraft has a "perfect" glide angle
> that achieves maximum distance - the pilot is expected to know it).
> As you approach the ground, you pull the nose up and briefly max the
> rotor pitch to quickly stop your forward motion and then quickly
> reduce pitch again and level off to settle onto the ground.
heh-heh, I just realized that the thing I did not understand was why it
was called "autorotation". :) I see the rotation, where the hell is the
"auto"?! I guess that is trying to convey that they are rotating only
due to momentum, alias unassisted by the engine, aka "by themselves".
That works.
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:25:39 -0400, Ken Tilton
<···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>I read about autorotation in a book by an ex-Vietnam chopper pilot,
>>>never quite got it. :)
>>
>>
>> ChickenHawk? Great book!
>
>I liked the part where he was too overloaded (but it was a tight spot so
>no one exactly wanted to get off) so he through the thing off a cliff
>that happened to be just there generating enough lift from the drop to
>bootstrap a flight, or something like that.
>
>Oh, and the ill-fated "joy ride" to take an old rotor or two out to sea
>-- those rotors were not too old to fly in the wash. Ouch. Talk about a
>tiger by the tail...
My favorite part was almost landing in a mine field while overloaded
with high explosives ... engine over-heating and rotors over-torquing
just to hold the Huey inches off the ground and needing to get over a
fence to get out of the mine field. How they got out of that
predicament is a great lesson in flight physics.
Anyway, enough book reviews. We now return to the regularly scheduled
program.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:55:10 -0400, George Neuner
<·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>[autorotation] is quite a difficult maneuver to master. I fly light
>planes myself - the plane maneuver is quite similar but the helicopter
>version happens a lot faster and is a whole lot scarier. The typical
>light plane at optimum glide angle has a 100:1 glide ratio - 100 feet
>forward for 1 foot down. The typical chopper has a 10:1 glide ratio.
Probably no one cares at this point, but I goofed this up royally. I
started with the intent of talking about maximums and then changed
midstream to averages and in the end what I wrote was a non-sensical
mixture that I didn't notice before I posted it.
To set the record straight: the average plane has a glide ratio of
20-25:1. Sail-planes have much higher ratios and do in fact go as
high as 100:1.
Similarly with helicopters: the average chopper has a glide ratio of
about 3:1 with certain specialty models going higher.
Thanks to everyone who pointed out my goof.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
···········@c4l.co.uk writes:
> On 28 May, 07:54, Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:34:44 -0700, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>> >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive fashionable
>> >> languages resemble Lisp more and more then Lisp's turn should come at
>> >> some point.
>>
>> >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would you say we're close to a
>> >> Lisp boom ?
>>
>> > We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment. If
>> > my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network monitor
>> > applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have 50 megs of
>> > lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update packages.
>>
>> Why would they possibly be run in separate images?
>
> All my Firefox windows are forced to run in the same image. All my
> Gnome Terminal windows are forced to run in the same image. When one
> Firefox tab crashes, all my Firefox windows disappear. When one Gnome
> Terminal window crashes, all my Gnome Terminal windows disappear. The
> latter also kills any subprocesses of the terminals; e.g. Emacs or
> Thunderbird.
>
> That's why you might not want every application on your computer to
> run in the same image.
Assuming that when one program goes awry, the whole image goes down, you
have a point. But that wouldn't necessarily happen. Firefox and Gnome
Terminal may crash all the time, but they're also written in C++ and
C. Isn't it more likely that when a Lisp program crashes you drop into
the debugger, leaving the rest of your programs untouched? FFI work can
crash your image for sure, but in this fantasy world where I have a Lisp
desktop, there are also enough libraries and bindings that I don't need
to make more.
Sure, running everything in one image does mean that all programs crash
if the image crashes, but the same goes for your X server or your
kernel. If you suspect the software you're developing is going to crash
hard, run a second image for it until it's stable.
thus spoke Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net>:
> Assuming that when one program goes awry, the whole image goes down, you
> have a point. But that wouldn't necessarily happen.
The process will die on OOM (out-of-memory) anyway. That's not something
a Lisp image could control - it's the kernel that kills processes under
memory shortage.
--
The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists
entirely of souls. -- Inuit saying
Stanisław Halik <··············@tehran.lain.pl> writes:
> thus spoke Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net>:
>
>> Assuming that when one program goes awry, the whole image goes down, you
>> have a point. But that wouldn't necessarily happen.
>
> The process will die on OOM (out-of-memory) anyway. That's not something
> a Lisp image could control - it's the kernel that kills processes under
> memory shortage.
I suppose this happens all the time? As far as I know, this is mostly an
issue on servers with more than 8 GB of memory. And regardless, couldn't
a Lisp monitor its own allocation and recover much the same as the
kernel would?
I'm not saying that there aren't certain advantages to a restructured
implementation, but I don't believe lack of the same is a
show-stopper. Running a lot of (mature) programs in the same image will
likely work fine most of the time.
thus spoke Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net>:
>> The process will die on OOM (out-of-memory) anyway. That's not something
>> a Lisp image could control - it's the kernel that kills processes under
>> memory shortage.
> I suppose this happens all the time? As far as I know, this is mostly an
> issue on servers with more than 8 GB of memory. And regardless, couldn't
> a Lisp monitor its own allocation and recover much the same as the
> kernel would?
The memory could be hogged by an another non-Lisp process and the kernel
would recover from an OOM situation by killing the Lisp one. The whole
image dies, since not killing all of the threads wouldn't recover any
heap at all. Linux has a fancy OOM heuristics killing processes pretty
much at random.
> I'm not saying that there aren't certain advantages to a restructured
> implementation, but I don't believe lack of the same is a
> show-stopper. Running a lot of (mature) programs in the same image will
> likely work fine most of the time.
Yeah, pretty much.
--
The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists
entirely of souls. -- Inuit saying
Stanisław Halik <··············@tehran.lain.pl> writes:
> thus spoke Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net>:
>
>>> The process will die on OOM (out-of-memory) anyway. That's not something
>>> a Lisp image could control - it's the kernel that kills processes under
>>> memory shortage.
>> I suppose this happens all the time? As far as I know, this is mostly an
>> issue on servers with more than 8 GB of memory. And regardless, couldn't
>> a Lisp monitor its own allocation and recover much the same as the
>> kernel would?
>
> The memory could be hogged by an another non-Lisp process and the kernel
> would recover from an OOM situation by killing the Lisp one. The whole
> image dies, since not killing all of the threads wouldn't recover any
> heap at all. Linux has a fancy OOM heuristics killing processes pretty
> much at random.
Yes, I'm making the assumption that your main Lisp image will be the
main memory hog and be able to manage memory exhaustion to some
degree. I'm pretty sure Linux kills the worst offender first (modulo
some scoring differences for kernel processes (ignored) and nice value),
so this might be enough.
But you're right that it's a pertinent problem. I'm not convinced it's a
pressing one.
>> I'm not saying that there aren't certain advantages to a restructured
>> implementation, but I don't believe lack of the same is a
>> show-stopper. Running a lot of (mature) programs in the same image will
>> likely work fine most of the time.
>
> Yeah, pretty much.
>
> --
> The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists
> entirely of souls. -- Inuit saying
From: Giorgos Keramidas
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Date:
Message-ID: <87skvovfl7.fsf@kobe.laptop>
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:18:29 +0000 (UTC), Stanisław Halik <··············@tehran.lain.pl> wrote:
> thus spoke Paul Donnelly <·············@sbcglobal.net>:
>>> The process will die on OOM (out-of-memory) anyway. That's not
>>> something a Lisp image could control - it's the kernel that kills
>>> processes under memory shortage.
>>
>> I suppose this happens all the time? As far as I know, this is mostly
>> an issue on servers with more than 8 GB of memory. And regardless,
>> couldn't a Lisp monitor its own allocation and recover much the same
>> as the kernel would?
>
> The memory could be hogged by an another non-Lisp process and the
> kernel would recover from an OOM situation by killing the Lisp
> one. The whole image dies, since not killing all of the threads
> wouldn't recover any heap at all. Linux has a fancy OOM heuristics
> killing processes pretty much at random.
OOM isn't any more a Lisp problem than it is a C bug, or an OCaml
misfeature. There are options to disable `memory overcommit' in Linux
now, so let's move on :)
On 28 May, 06:18, Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> When lisp can replace say the dhcp client to make my internet go then it
> will be relevant to joe user and mr uptight admin.
Why? What's special about a DHCP client?
Dihydrogen Monoxide <············@gmail.com> writes:
>
> We need to change Lisp's architecture. No more included environment. If
> my office suite, my window manager, my X server, my network monitor
> applet, my browser, my newsreader, and my terminal all have 50 megs of
> lisp attached, that's a problem, especially when I update packages.
They should all be running within the same Lisp instance. The problem
is that it's a single process, and there's currently no way to securely
isolate the different sub-processes from one another.
Wasn't this a problem with the Lisp Machines--that they were all deeply
single-user? Or did they become multi-user eventually?
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Democracy: a system where, when you want coffee they give you a choice
of Coke or Pepsi.
Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
The world is close to a Lisp boom in the sense that Lisp's dwindling
popularity can barely get any lower.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
Jon Harrop wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
> The world is close to a Lisp boom in the sense that Lisp's dwindling
> popularity can barely get any lower.
>
..are you expecting some kind of emotional response to these posts of yours?
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org
Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>
>> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>
>>
>> The world is close to a Lisp boom in the sense that Lisp's dwindling
>> popularity can barely get any lower.
>>
>
> ..are you expecting some kind of emotional response to these posts of
> yours?
>
It's my fault. Jon and I have been disappointed in traffic to our site
lately so I suggested we give trolling one more try to see if there was
anyone left on c.l.l silly enough to engage him. He is in too much of a
funk to try but gave me the go-ahead to use his email address.
Jon was right: it will be a full year before this fishing ground
recovers. Sorry, boss!
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Jon Harrop wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
> The world is close to a Lisp boom in the sense that Lisp's dwindling
> popularity can barely get any lower.
Stop changing your address, you slimy toad.
*plonk*