··········@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>
>
> Thanks
(1) memorize the AMOP
(2) use CLOS for everything
You'll be giving talks at Lisp conferences in a year.
hth, kenny
On Feb 6, 3:26 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> ··········@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> > Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>
> > Thanks
>
> (1) memorize the AMOP
> (2) use CLOS for everything
>
> You'll be giving talks at Lisp conferences in a year.
>
> hth, kenny
Similar to this guy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413
if that does not work out so well, then try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA49Jjg0xik
;-)
······@corporate-world.lisp.de wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:26 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ··········@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>>> Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>>> Thanks
>> (1) memorize the AMOP
>> (2) use CLOS for everything
>>
>> You'll be giving talks at Lisp conferences in a year.
>>
>> hth, kenny
>
> Similar to this guy:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413
>
> if that does not work out so well, then try this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA49Jjg0xik
Hey, he knows the words! Decent phrasing and nice stage presence. A
little (?!) pitchy, tho, as Dawg would say.
kt
Now I can summarize:
Fact:
-Will take 10 years to achieve!
Books:
"ANSI Common Lisp" by Paul Graham.
"Practical Common Lisp" (PCL) by Peter Seibel
"Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming" (PAIP) by Peter
Norvig
"on Lisp" by Paul Graham (only available online)
"Object Oriented programming in Common Lisp" by Sonya Keene
"The Art of Meta Object Protocol" by Kizales, des Riveres, Bobrow
"Lisp in Small Pieces" by Queinnec
"The art of the interpreter" Steele and Sussman
"How to Design Programs"
To Do's:
-memorize the AMOP
-use CLOS for everything
Projects:
?????????
Can anyone tell me some good projects/programs one should write, which
will be good exercise to learn lisp?
...L
On Feb 6, 7:02 pm, ··········@gmail.com wrote:
> Now I can summarize:
>
> Fact:
> -Will take 10 years to achieve!
>
> Books:
> "ANSI Common Lisp" by Paul Graham.
> "Practical Common Lisp" (PCL) by Peter Seibel
> "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming" (PAIP) by Peter
> Norvig
> "on Lisp" by Paul Graham (only available online)
> "Object Oriented programming in Common Lisp" by Sonya Keene
> "The Art of Meta Object Protocol" by Kizales, des Riveres, Bobrow
> "Lisp in Small Pieces" by Queinnec
> "The art of the interpreter" Steele and Sussman
> "How to Design Programs"
>
> To Do's:
> -memorize the AMOP
> -use CLOS for everything
>
> Projects:
> ?????????
>
> Can anyone tell me some good projects/programs one should write, which
> will be good exercise to learn lisp?
>
> ...L
Some ideas for Lisp projects are collected here:
http://www.cliki.net/Suggested%20Programming%20Projects
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmhvv6$3kh$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-06 13:02:59 -0500, ··········@gmail.com said:
> To Do's:
> -memorize the AMOP
> -use CLOS for everything
You realize that this sugestion was tongue in cheek right? (and yet
another jab of Kenny's directed at Pascal Costanza)
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
On Feb 6, 11:36 pm, Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-02-06 13:02:59 -0500, ··········@gmail.com said:
>
> > To Do's:
> > -memorize the AMOP
> > -use CLOS for everything
>
> You realize that this sugestion was tongue in cheek right? (and yet
> another jab of Kenny's directed at Pascal Costanza)
> --
> Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
So these old men are kidding the child (me).
··········@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:36 pm, Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-02-06 13:02:59 -0500, ··········@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> To Do's:
>>> -memorize the AMOP
>>> -use CLOS for everything
>> You realize that this sugestion was tongue in cheek right? (and yet
>> another jab of Kenny's directed at Pascal Costanza)
>> --
>> Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
>
> So these old men are kidding the child (me).
>
Oh, you were serious? Oh, my. Putting "shortest" and "guru" in the same
sentence alone earns you ten more years in the temple.
Anyway, I think someone already stole my thunder: shut up and start
coding. Also:
- read c.l.l regularly. occasionally lisp gets discussed.
- post code here when in doubt and ask for feedback
- read "On Lisp", nothing else, and not all of it. Maybe also PG's ANSI
Common Lisp.
That should do it.
hth,kth
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmi4m7$7rl$2@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-06 13:51:23 -0500, ··········@gmail.com said:
> So these old men are kidding the child (me).
More like Kenny was taking a jab at Pascal Costanza using your question
as a vehicle. You were just colatteral damage ;^)
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2009-02-06 13:51:23 -0500, ··········@gmail.com said:
>
>> So these old men are kidding the child (me).
>
> More like Kenny was taking a jab at Pascal Costanza using your question
> as a vehicle. You were just colatteral damage ;^)
Some jab, calling someone a "guru". You underestimate The Kenny. This
has you at par: everyone underestimates The Kenny.
Your problem is that the answer I gave is perfectly accurate, witness
PC's guru-hood and narrow expertise and recentness of cult
indoctrination into the fanatichood religion we call Lisp thanks to some
silly geeks (pardon the redundancy) present at the creation and thus in
fact to His surprise was able to answer in Good Faith with a
demonstrated shortest path where none could be expected given the
traveling salesman farmer's daughters aside.
hth,kth
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmo760$fqi$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-08 11:18:47 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> Some jab, calling someone a "guru".
the jab was "use clos for everything," which even someone as
knowledgeable about clos as Pascal Costanza does not advocate.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2009-02-08 11:18:47 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Some jab, calling someone a "guru".
>
> the jab was "use clos for everything," which even someone as
> knowledgeable about clos as Pascal Costanza does not advocate.
Feel free to offer just one* solution or paper posted by His Pascalness
that did /not/ fundamentally involve CLOS or GFs. I'd dig up some of the
funnier excesses in the other direction if I felt like doing your
homework for you.
kt
* 1
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmpmme$nqh$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-08 23:26:30 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> Feel free to offer just one* solution or paper posted by His Pascalness
> that did /not/ fundamentally involve CLOS or GFs.
1. Newbie question: form evaluation re defun, funcall, apply.
Response did not involve CLOS or GFs in any way:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/8798d74239c3b763?hl=en>
2. Newbie question: difficulty understanding interaction of closures and gc.
Response did not involve CLOS or GFs in any way:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/87140d94b81ca3fc?hl=en>
I got these in a few seconds by googling for author: Pascal Costanza
group: comp.lang.lisp on the single word "defun." BTW, asking for a
"paper" is really disingenuous; CLOS is Pascal's area of expertise so
it's obviously to be expected that he'll mostly (or exclusivey) produce
academic work of publishable quality on that subject.
I could find more usenet posts like the above two, but I don't want to
do *your* homework for *you* which, in case this thread doesn't make
painfully clear, is to stop hating on Pascal Costanza. Pascal, like
you, is a valuable member of the common lisp community. We really don't
need the infighting.
regards,
Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2009-02-08 23:26:30 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Feel free to offer just one* solution or paper posted by His
>> Pascalness that did /not/ fundamentally involve CLOS or GFs.
>
> 1. Newbie question: form evaluation re defun, funcall, apply.
> Response did not involve CLOS or GFs in any way:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/8798d74239c3b763?hl=en>
>
> 2. Newbie question: difficulty understanding interaction of closures and
> gc.
> Response did not involve CLOS or GFs in any way:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/87140d94b81ca3fc?hl=en>
>
> I got these in a few seconds by googling for author: Pascal Costanza
> group: comp.lang.lisp on the single word "defun." BTW, asking for a
> "paper" is really disingenuous; CLOS is Pascal's area of expertise so
> it's obviously to be expected that he'll mostly (or exclusivey) produce
> academic work of publishable quality on that subject.
CLOS as an area of expertise? I think you just proved my point. It's a
chapter in a language manual, fer chrissakes, and a lousy one. I am
switching us all to RDF (now that I have learned Redland does not care
if you persist it).
>
> I could find more usenet posts like the above two, but I don't want to
> do *your* homework for *you* which, in case this thread doesn't make
> painfully clear, is to stop hating on Pascal Costanza.
Whoa? Where do you get that? I'll buy him a beer at any Lisp meet. He
and I like flaming each other on c.l.l, tho I must say he does tend to
get all potty mouth from time to time. But I think the last was just a
quote from The Terminator, so I don't take it personal.
Only three* Lispers have had regular issues with more than one other
Lisper. Anyone care to name them and their issuees? Moral then left as a
further exercise.
kzo
* Might be two. k
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmpvt3$1u9$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-09 13:16:34 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> I think you just proved my point.
You asked for specific proof; I provided it (twice over, no less). In
lucid circles this means that I proved *my* point, not yours.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2009-02-09 13:16:34 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> I think you just proved my point.
>
> You asked for specific proof; I provided it (twice over, no less). In
> lucid circles this means that I proved *my* point, not yours.
heh-heh, I guess you do not even realize what you said. With defenders
like you PC does not need kennemies.
Meanwhile, stop pretending to be a peacemaker. I offered an unbound
remark in an obscure thread, you're the oaf that took out a frickin
billboard and hung a name on it. Nice work.
hth,kth
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmq89p$a2a$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-09 14:50:39 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> heh-heh, I guess you do not even realize what you said. With defenders
> like you PC does not need kennemies.
I know exactly what I said. That *you* claim not believe that CLOS and
the MOP constitute an area of expertise speaks only to your current
self imposed exile to a language without CLOS and the MOP (i.e.,
javascript). IOW, you, a former heavy CLOS user and advocate, now
restricted to javascript, are simply crying "sour grapes!" No one is
fooled.
>
> Meanwhile, stop pretending to be a peacemaker. I offered an unbound
> remark in an obscure thread, you're the oaf that took out a frickin
> billboard and hung a name on it. Nice work.
Everyone who has read your ongoing pot shots at Pascal Costanza knows
exactly who you were targeting with your "memorize the mop" and "use
clos for everything." Stop pretending I revealed some arcane secret.
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> I know exactly what I said. That *you* claim not believe that CLOS and
> the MOP constitute an area of expertise speaks only to your current self
> imposed exile to a language without CLOS and the MOP (i.e., javascript).
> IOW, you, a former heavy CLOS user and advocate, now restricted to
> javascript, are simply crying "sour grapes!" No one is fooled.
You missed my announcement of cells-qx, which will let me return from my
forty days in the js desert to a language capable of binding variables
within something other than a function. (what were they thinking? did
steele have a hand in that language, too?!)
As for CLOS, yes, been there, done that and if it were not for a
superior representation (RDF) I might not even today be aware of how
constraining is CLOS. It is not the Lisp Way(tm) and given that
little-known Lispers like Paul Graham and Richard Gabriel agree I think
you are a little bit out on a limb trying to defend that steaming turd
let alone question my intellectual honesty.
You PhDs... what is that, an anti-intelligence program you go through?
If you are looking for some spiritual healing, grab the free
AllegroGraph/ACL and play with RDF in anger (ie, on a real app even if
just a recipe arranger or somethin), I think you'll learn something.
hth,kzo
ps. Take a hint from the bit you are still looking for. h,k
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmr1ub$cd$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-09 18:21:59 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> As for CLOS, yes, been there, done that and if it were not for a
> superior representation (RDF) I might not even today be aware of how
> constraining is CLOS. It is not the Lisp Way(tm) and given that
> little-known Lispers like Paul Graham and Richard Gabriel agree I think
> you are a little bit out on a limb trying to defend that steaming turd
> let alone question my intellectual honesty.
You mean the Paul Graham who thinks loop is a mistake, the loop you
advocate so vocally - he's your ally now? What was that other point you
were making about intellectual honesty?
> You PhDs... what is that, an anti-intelligence program you go through?
Chip on your shoulder much? ;^)
Look Ken, no reasonable person thinks CLOS is perfect, but it is *very*
useful, and very flexible (thanks in no small part to the MOP), and
*way* better than the object systems of other languages.
You seem to crave novelty and having mastered clos you're bored and
attracted to the (currently for you) shiny newness of RDF triples. But
frankly, although I can see how you might think they are more like "the
lisp way" (being, as they are, pretty frikin minimal) there really
isn't much to them that wasn't already there in lisp a long time ago.
For example, an alist for every subject with each key-value pair a
predicate object pair. The fact that associative data structures can
flexibly encode lots of semantic information is not news to
programmers, espcially not to lisp programmers. It seems rather like
using angle brackets instead of parens, and explicit tags, and claiming
to have invented s-expressions. Oh, wait, that's xml, isn't it.
If you want to go the route of simplicity and avoid the complexities of
clos then fine. I actually have similar tastes myself and only use clos
when i have to, for example when using closified interfaces to gui and
os libraries. But that's no reason to beat up on those who still find
clos useful.
And please stop casting me in the role of the peacemaker - I'm having
trouble keeping a straight face doing this ;^)
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2009-02-09 18:21:59 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> As for CLOS, yes, been there, done that and if it were not for a
>> superior representation (RDF) I might not even today be aware of how
>> constraining is CLOS. It is not the Lisp Way(tm) and given that
>> little-known Lispers like Paul Graham and Richard Gabriel agree I
>> think you are a little bit out on a limb trying to defend that
>> steaming turd let alone question my intellectual honesty.
>
> You mean the Paul Graham who thinks loop is a mistake, the loop you
> advocate so vocally - he's your ally now? What was that other point you
> were making about intellectual honesty?
I need to show you more compassion. For seven years you learned to
suppress your mind in order to make your thesis advisor happy, and now
you are toe-to-toe with The Kenny and omigod! where's my mind?!
Lemme help: I do not need Graham or Gabriel to be perfect to win my
point, I need for them to be respectable. Given in the former case On
Lisp and ANSI Common Lisp and in the latter case an entire Lisp company,
oops, I win. Maybe you can get your tuition back.
>
>> You PhDs... what is that, an anti-intelligence program you go through?
>
> Chip on your shoulder much? ;^)
Actually it was a recent PhD earner who gave me the idea. I once
considered getting an advanced degree in comp sci and then I looked at
the published specs and I realized I was way too mature to subject
myself to such silliness for so long and at such expense sucking up for
far too long to professors when as far as I could make out the
application code I was writing was more interesting than any course they
offered.
Care to dispute that? What is the graduate level course or three you
think makes you better than I?
>
> Look Ken, no reasonable person thinks CLOS is perfect, but it is *very*
> useful, and very flexible (thanks in no small part to the MOP), and
> *way* better than the object systems of other languages.
Agreed. It just is not Lispy. You seem not to grasp the essence of
Lispy. It's pretty much about not being told what to do at the same time
as being given way powerful mechanisms to do it with.
>
> You seem to crave novelty and having mastered clos you're bored and
> attracted to the (currently for you) shiny newness of RDF triples. But
> frankly, although I can see how you might think they are more like "the
> lisp way" (being, as they are, pretty frikin minimal) there really isn't
> much to them that wasn't already there in lisp a long time ago.
Ah, there's your problem. You understand nothing about Lisp. It is not
about minimalism, it is about freedom of expression along with
empowerment. You also understand nothing about RDF if you think it is
minimal having every attribute ISAM-indexed. Which I now see...
>
> For example, an alist for every subject with each key-value pair a
> predicate object pair. The fact that associative data structures can
> flexibly encode lots of semantic information is not news to programmers,
> espcially not to lisp programmers. It seems rather like using angle
> brackets instead of parens, and explicit tags, and claiming to have
> invented s-expressions. Oh, wait, that's xml, isn't it.
..you do not know RDF can do. Maybe you can get your tuition back.
>
> If you want to go the route of simplicity and avoid the complexities of
> clos then fine.
Oh, crap, sorry, I thought this was addressed to me. I want to go the
route of freedom and avoid the strait jacket of CLOS. Who is this idiot
you were trying to correspond with?!
The complexity of CLOS is a property emergent from its buying into the
rigidity of OOPS, every whizbang in it designed to let us do anyway what
the rigid underlying model would deny us.
God, I hope you are taking notes.
I actually have similar tastes myself and only use clos
> when i have to, for example when using closified interfaces to gui and
> os libraries. But that's no reason to beat up on those who still find
> clos useful.
Nice try. You just segued from "make a career out of CLOS" to "find it
useful". Save that sophistry for your students -- they are not allowed
to burst out laughing in your face.
>
> And please stop casting me in the role of the peacemaker - I'm having
> trouble keeping a straight face doing this ;^)
>
Too late, yer up for the Rodney King Peace Prize already.
kxo
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gms7he$bi5$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-10 02:23:15 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> I do not need Graham or Gabriel to be perfect to win my point
You are making an argument from authority so, yes, you do need Graham
or Gabriel to be perfect. Unless the authority you rely on is provably
infallible your argument fails.
> I once considered getting an advanced degree in comp sci and then I
> looked at the published specs and I realized I was way too mature to
> subject myself to such silliness for so long and at such expense
> sucking up for far too long to professors when as far as I could make
> out the application code I was writing was more interesting than any
> course they offered.
You're right about this if your goal is writing applications and not
doing research.
>
> Care to dispute that? What is the graduate level course or three you
> think makes you better than I?
I don't think I'm better than you. That's how I know you have a chip on
your shoulder - you're imputing condescention where there is none.
> ..you do not know RDF can do. Maybe you can get your tuition back.
RDF can be used to do anything, but *you* have to do it because RDF on
its own is just a collection of simple semantic linkages. The same is
true of alists or hash tables or structs...
Your claim that rdf is the be all and end all just because it allows
one to flexibly encode simple semantics is rather like saying that
assembler is the ultimate lispy tool because it allows you the freedom
to express anything with unrestricted power.
> Nice try. You just segued from "make a career out of CLOS" to "find it
> useful". Save that sophistry for your students -- they are not allowed
> to burst out laughing in your face.
I don't make a carreer out of clos. I never suggested that you do so.
Some people can and do. You should stop trying to validate your
decision to abandon clos by atacking them.
In your own recounting of how you came to like and use loop you said
that you used to decry it for about eight years ("Bad LOOP! Bad!" was
your phrase:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/b25d99ec6f97f85f?hl=en>).
Now you praise it to the sky. Seems like, for you, something is either
a steaming turd, or the One True Way. Problem is, you've assiged both
designations to the same thing at various times (loop, clos, and one
wonders when rdf will join the Pantheon/shitlist). Seems much more
likely that the truth is at neither extreme.
regards,
Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> RDF can be used to do anything, but *you* have to do it because RDF on
> its own is just a collection of simple semantic linkages. The same is
> true of alists or hash tables or structs...
Oh yeah? I did not know hashtables did ISAM. Awesome! And how about the
efficiency of URIs in storage? Or is it UPIs? I get confused.
RDF may be a small step forward in terms of what is under the hood --
basically just a simple combination of a few well-understood ideas, but,
hey, look at E=mc^2.
>
> Your claim that rdf is the be all and end all just because it allows one
> to flexibly encode simple semantics is rather like saying that assembler
> is the ultimate lispy tool because it allows you the freedom to express
> anything with unrestricted power.
Another argument from analogy falls flat on its face because of domain
mismatch. We build up assembler to higher level data manipulation
constructs we all pretty much agree on. But data modeling goes directly
to the richness and diversity of the world. Any attempt here to create
higher-order meta-constructs such as the relational model or the object
model only gets in the developers way by forcing us to work with the
world as if it were all tables and rows or classes with set slots.
Which it ain't.
<billboard snipped>
>
> In your own recounting of how you came to like and use loop you said
> that you used to decry it for about eight years ("Bad LOOP! Bad!" was
> your phrase:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/b25d99ec6f97f85f?hl=en>).
> Now you praise it to the sky. Seems like, for you, something is either a
> steaming turd, or the One True Way.
You prefer the waffling backtracking inch at a time hyper cautionated
ooh be careful you might say something wrong soporific of PhD theses, I
presume. MMDD.
> Problem is, you've assiged both
> designations to the same thing at various times
You mean I have learned over the years and am open to new ideas?
Thanks!
kt
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmsfnj$lus$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-10 12:32:36 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> You mean I have learned over the years and am open to new ideas?
Only if repeating the same Pantheon/shitlist pattern again and again
contstitues learning. Real learning would be to temper your enthusiasm
for the (purportedly) new (e.g., rdf, arc), and to not throw out the
baby with the bathwater for the old (e.g., clos).
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2009-02-10 12:32:36 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> You mean I have learned over the years and am open to new ideas?
>
> Only if repeating the same Pantheon/shitlist pattern again and again
> contstitues learning. Real learning would be to temper your enthusiasm
> for the (purportedly) new (e.g., rdf, arc), and to not throw out the
> baby with the bathwater for the old (e.g., clos).
Ah, I see, it is my enthusiasm and continued and ever growing enthusiasm
for programming that shames you academics by comparison, your spirits
broken by the madness of trying to placate some other lost in the paper
chase real world avoiding tyrannical thesis advisor.
Fact is, I have spoken to more than a few who are just as excited about
RDF as Moiself. You might want to empty your cup a little and learn to
like learning again.
kt
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmtdu9$o0g$1@aioe.org>
On 2009-02-10 16:02:22 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> Fact is, I have spoken to more than a few who are just as excited about
> RDF as Moiself. You might want to empty your cup a little and learn to
> like learning again.
I've never stopped loving learning. Neither have I stopped seeing when
the emperor has no clothes.
regards,
Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
··········@gmail.com writes:
> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
A man from AI walked across the mountains to SAIL to see the Master,
Knuth. When he arrived, the Master was nowhere to be found.
"Where is the wise one named Knuth?", he asked a passing student.
"Ah," said the student," you have not heard. He has gone on a
pilgrimage across the mountains to the temple of AI to seek out new
disciples."
Hearing this, the man was Enlightened.
http://www.c2i.ntu.edu.sg/AI+CI/Humor/AI_Jokes/AIKoans-DHillis.html
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
P� Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:56:55 +0100, skrev <··········@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>
>
> Thanks
Well it is a 10 year voyage requiring a lot of programming.
You might also consider these 6 books: (read in approximately that order)
"Practical Common Lisp" (PCL) by Peter Seibel
"Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming" (PAIP) by Peter Norvig
"on Lisp" by Paul Graham (only available online)
"Object Oriented programming in Common Lisp" by Sonya Keene
"The Art of Meta Object Protocol" by Kizales, des Riveres, Bobrow
"Lisp in Small Pieces" by Queinnec
Also look at websites www.clici.net, planet-lisp.org,
cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net and others
--------------
John Thingstad
On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> På Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:56:55 +0100, skrev <··········@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> > Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>
> > Thanks
>
> Well it is a 10 year voyage requiring a lot of programming.
>
> You might also consider these 6 books: (read in approximately that order)
>
> "Practical Common Lisp" (PCL) by Peter Seibel
> "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming" (PAIP) by Peter Norvig
> "on Lisp" by Paul Graham (only available online)
> "Object Oriented programming in Common Lisp" by Sonya Keene
> "The Art of Meta Object Protocol" by Kizales, des Riveres, Bobrow
> "Lisp in Small Pieces" by Queinnec
>
> Also look at websiteswww.clici.net, planet-lisp.org,
> cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net and others
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad
Thanks,
Previously, I studied few chapters in PCL and On lisp and tried
programming in lisp,
but what happen was I was writing c programs in lisp syntax.
Can I believe I can get the "enlightment of lisp" after reading and
working with these books?
LBOard1947
On 6 Feb., 13:23, ··········@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > På Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:56:55 +0100, skrev <··········@gmail.com>:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> > > Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>
> > > Thanks
>
> > Well it is a 10 year voyage requiring a lot of programming.
>
> > You might also consider these 6 books: (read in approximately that order)
>
> > "Practical Common Lisp" (PCL) by Peter Seibel
> > "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming" (PAIP) by Peter Norvig
> > "on Lisp" by Paul Graham (only available online)
> > "Object Oriented programming in Common Lisp" by Sonya Keene
> > "The Art of Meta Object Protocol" by Kizales, des Riveres, Bobrow
> > "Lisp in Small Pieces" by Queinnec
>
> > Also look at websiteswww.clici.net, planet-lisp.org,
> > cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net and others
>
> > --------------
> > John Thingstad
>
> Thanks,
>
> Previously, I studied few chapters in PCL and On lisp and tried
> programming in lisp,
> but what happen was I was writing c programs in lisp syntax.
> Can I believe I can get the "enlightment of lisp" after reading and
> working with these books?
Forget what you have learned.
Read this: Computer Science Logo Style, Volume 1: Symbolic Computing
by Brian Harvey.
Start here:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v1-toc2.html
Then read the rest of the books.
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/
> LBOard1947
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:07:01 -0800, ······@corporate-world.lisp.de wrote:
> Forget what you have learned.
This is the crucial step.
I also recommend "How to Design Programs" by Felleisen, Findler, Flatt
and Krishnamurthy. (http://www.htdp.org/) Even if you don't read it,
look at the table of contents and consider that assignment to variables
is not covered until the second last section. All of the preceding
sections and chapters have assignments. Forgetting what you know about
programming is important.
Cheers,
--
Andrew
On Feb 6, 1:23 pm, ··········@gmail.com wrote:
> Previously, I studied few chapters in PCL and On lisp and tried
> programming in lisp,
> but what happen was I was writing c programs in lisp syntax.
> Can I believe I can get the "enlightment of lisp" after reading and
> working with these books?
Learning a (human) foreign language is akin to learning Lisp:
Don't worry if at the beginning you say things like "The brother of my
mother is rich" instead of "My oncle is wealthy". Lisp allows for it.
Be patient; persevere.
From: Alexander Lehmann
Subject: Re: What is the shortest path...?
Date:
Message-ID: <gmhacm$35c$1@online.de>
··········@gmail.com wrote:
> but what happen was I was writing c programs in lisp syntax.
> Can I believe I can get the "enlightment of lisp" after reading and
> working with these books?
In order to grasp a more functional style you might want to consider reading
"ANSI Common Lisp" by Paul Graham.
P� Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:23:34 +0100, skrev <··········@gmail.com>:
>
> Previously, I studied few chapters in PCL and On lisp and tried
> programming in lisp,
> but what happen was I was writing c programs in lisp syntax.
> Can I believe I can get the "enlightment of lisp" after reading and
> working with these books?
>
> LBOard1947
For what it's worth I had the same problem. It takes time to 'reprogram'
your brain. Hopefully it get's better in time.
I forgot to mention this link: A tutorial to good Lisp Programming style
http:/norvig.com/luv-slides.ps (You might need ghostscript and ghostview
to read this.)
--------------
John Thingstad
On Feb 6, 8:13 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> På Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:23:34 +0100, skrev <··········@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> > Previously, I studied few chapters in PCL and On lisp and tried
> > programming in lisp,
> > but what happen was I was writing c programs in lisp syntax.
> > Can I believe I can get the "enlightment of lisp" after reading and
> > working with these books?
>
> > LBOard1947
>
> For what it's worth I had the same problem. It takes time to 'reprogram'
> your brain. Hopefully it get's better in time.
>
> I forgot to mention this link: A tutorial to good Lisp Programming style
> http:/norvig.com/luv-slides.ps (You might need ghostscript and ghostview
> to read this.)
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad
There is a lot to unlearn in Lisp.
Matthias
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:43:25 +0100, John Thingstad wrote:
>quoting iboard1947
>> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> Well it is a 10 year voyage requiring a lot of programming.
It's been recently reported that guru-hood or "genius" in essentially any
discipline is available to anyone with enthusiasm or a pre-disposition
and 10000 hours of practice. For a diligent student, that's pretty close
to ten years.
The OP should just go for it...
[Corollary: Kenny is right of course: "shut up and code".]
To John's reading list I'd add "The art of the interpreter" by (?) Steele
and Sussman (?). I've heard that Lisp in Small Pieces is better, but
I've only read the former, yet. It's a great read too.
For object oriented programming, I recommend Meyer's OOSCv2, but lisp
(and functional programming in general) has been teaching me that the
imperative nature inherent in object orientation might be convenient and
pragmatic scaffolding and organizational method, but it is
overspecification, which is the second cousin of premature optimization,
the root of all programming evil...
Cheers,
--
Andrew
On 6 Feb., 14:30, Andrew Reilly <···············@areilly.bpc-
users.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:43:25 +0100, John Thingstad wrote:
> >quoting iboard1947
> >> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> > Well it is a 10 year voyage requiring a lot of programming.
>
> It's been recently reported that guru-hood or "genius" in essentially any
> discipline is available to anyone with enthusiasm or a pre-disposition
> and 10000 hours of practice. For a diligent student, that's pretty close
> to ten years.
>
> The OP should just go for it...
>
> [Corollary: Kenny is right of course: "shut up and code".]
>
> To John's reading list I'd add "The art of the interpreter" by (?) Steele
> and Sussman (?). I've heard that Lisp in Small Pieces is better, but
> I've only read the former, yet. It's a great read too.
Before that everybody was recommending 'Anatomy of Lisp' to people
interested in the implementation of Lisp. That was
a classic. 'Lisp in Small Pieces' is much more modern and
a really great book.
> For object oriented programming, I recommend Meyer's OOSCv2, but lisp
> (and functional programming in general) has been teaching me that the
> imperative nature inherent in object orientation might be convenient and
> pragmatic scaffolding and organizational method, but it is
> overspecification, which is the second cousin of premature optimization,
> the root of all programming evil...
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Andrew
··········@gmail.com wrote in news:46adb379-8c0b-436b-bf35-eabf1204e570
@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> Hi,
>
> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>
> Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>
>
> Thanks
Start out by seeing CL as being far from perfect. But it's a programmable
programming language, so you can change it to make it perfect. After you
make it perfect, and get some experience with your new perfect version of
it, you will find reasons why it's not perfect after all. So change it
again, to follow the moving target of perfection. The path of changing it
towards perfection, then seeing it's not perfection after all, then
changing it again, etc., is a long path. When you travel that path
earnestly, without taking any shortcuts, and reach the true end of the
path, you will be a true guru.
But you want the shortest path. The easiest way to make the path shorter
is to redefine guru. In Lisp, everything can be redefined.
On 2009-02-10, Anagram <·······@nearmonopolyirkswuss.com> wrote:
> ··········@gmail.com wrote in news:46adb379-8c0b-436b-bf35-eabf1204e570
> @n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can any one show me the shortest path to become lisp guru...
>>
>> Sorry if it is a faq. (hope not waste than ad's posted)
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Start out by seeing CL as being far from perfect.
Where is perfect, and what formula measures the distance to it? Are these
objectively, uniquely defined?
If you are starting out (i.e. don't know CL), then how can you regard it as
being far from perfect, even if you have a definition of perfect, and
well-defined metric for measuring the distance to perfect?
How do you apply the metric to something you don't know?
And if suppose you /could/ rationally measure the distance between perfection
and something you don't know very well. How would you decide whether the
resulting value is a ``near'' or ``far'' distance? Near or far from perfect
compared to what, for what purpose?
:)