Another refurbished reply to avoid giving the same advice over and
over. I would be grateful for pointing my mistakes or should I add
something. If I find the useful I will add them in my post.
http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-kind-of-lisp-should-i-learn.html
cheers
bobi
On Feb 9, 11:45 pm, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Another refurbished reply to avoid giving the same advice over and
> over. I would be grateful for pointing my mistakes or should I add
> something. If I find the useful I will add them in my post.http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-kind-of-lisp-should-i-lea...
>
> cheers
> bobi
Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
comp.lang.lisp could then
be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There would be less confusion of
the
purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It would be much clearer that it is
NOT
about Emacs, Emacs customization, ... and especially not about OCAML
or F#. I would also be
more interested to discuss learning Common Lisp, programming with
Common Lisp, etc., than for example discussing 'Newlisp' or
random babbling about Lisp syntax.
On Feb 10, 2:09 am, ·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-
world.lisp.de> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:45 pm, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Another refurbished reply to avoid giving the same advice over and
> > over. I would be grateful for pointing my mistakes or should I add
> > something. If I find the useful I will add them in my post.http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-kind-of-lisp-should-i-lea...
>
> > cheers
> > bobi
>
> Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> comp.lang.lisp could then
> be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There would be less confusion of
> the
> purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It would be much clearer that it is
> NOT
> about Emacs, Emacs customization, ... and especially not about OCAML
> or F#. I would also be
> more interested to discuss learning Common Lisp, programming with
> Common Lisp, etc., than for example discussing 'Newlisp' or
> random babbling about Lisp syntax.
Well I can't agree more. If other regular common lispers don't have
against I say we should move.
What's the procedure of creating comp.lang.common-lisp newsgroup ?
Or if that's a too much hustle let's move to http://groups.google.com/group/ansi-common-lisp/
················@googlegroups.com I just created it, as somebody
already stole common-lisp and common-lisp.
Could people who are not using goog see content of such group?
cheers
bobi
On Feb 10, 2:30 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2:09 am, ·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-
>
> world.lisp.de> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 11:45 pm, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Another refurbished reply to avoid giving the same advice over and
> > > over. I would be grateful for pointing my mistakes or should I add
> > > something. If I find the useful I will add them in my post.http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-kind-of-lisp-should-i-lea...
>
> > > cheers
> > > bobi
>
> > Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> > comp.lang.lisp could then
> > be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There would be less confusion of
> > the
> > purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It would be much clearer that it is
> > NOT
> > about Emacs, Emacs customization, ... and especially not about OCAML
> > or F#. I would also be
> > more interested to discuss learning Common Lisp, programming with
> > Common Lisp, etc., than for example discussing 'Newlisp' or
> > random babbling about Lisp syntax.
>
> Well I can't agree more. If other regular common lispers don't have
> against I say we should move.
> What's the procedure of creating comp.lang.common-lisp newsgroup ?
> Or if that's a too much hustle let's move tohttp://groups.google.com/group/ansi-common-lisp/
> ················@googlegroups.com I just created it, as somebody
> already stole common-lisp and common-lisp.
> Could people who are not using goog see content of such group?
>
> cheers
> bobi
I'd like to stay on Usenet.
Le Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:30:28 -0800 (PST),
Slobodan Blazeski a écrit :
> > Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> > comp.lang.lisp could then
> [...]
> Well I can't agree more. If other regular common lispers don't have
> against I say we should move.
Just a (silly?) question, why not "comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp" or
"comp.lang.lisp.cl"?
I ask that because there is already "comp.lang.lisp.[franz,mcl,x]"
then...
--
Jacques.
On 10 Feb., 06:23, Kojak <·······@janville.Borg.invalid> wrote:
> Le Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:30:28 -0800 (PST),
> Slobodan Blazeski a écrit :
>
> > > Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> > > comp.lang.lisp could then
> > [...]
> > Well I can't agree more. If other regular common lispers don't have
> > against I say we should move.
>
> Just a (silly?) question, why not "comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp" or
> "comp.lang.lisp.cl"?
Because other Lisp dialects also have their own comp.lang hierarchy
(Scheme, Logo, ...). Major languages should be represented their
directly. 'Lisp' is more like a general family of languages.
You don't have comp.lang.algol.pascal or comp.lang.algol.oberon .
> I ask that because there is already "comp.lang.lisp.[franz,mcl,x]"
Also comp.lang.clos.
> then...
>
> --
> Jacques.
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:57:08 -0800 (PST),
······@corporate-world.lisp.de a écrit :
> On 10 Feb., 06:23, Kojak <·······@janville.Borg.invalid> wrote:
> > Just a (silly?) question, why not "comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp" or
> > "comp.lang.lisp.cl"?
>
> Because other Lisp dialects also have their own comp.lang hierarchy
> (Scheme, Logo, ...). Major languages should be represented their
> directly. 'Lisp' is more like a general family of languages.
> You don't have comp.lang.algol.pascal or comp.lang.algol.oberon .
May be retreive all sparse lisp related stuff or dialect
and group them under comp.lang.lisp tree as:
comp.lang.lisp
comp.lang.lisp.scheme
comp.lang.lisp.emacs-lisp
comp.lang.lisp.an-so-on...
comp.lang.lisp may remain what it is (or rename as common-lisp
for those who wish). :-)
--
Jacques.
Kojak <·······@janville.Borg.invalid> writes:
> Le Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:57:08 -0800 (PST),
> ······@corporate-world.lisp.de a �crit :
>
>> On 10 Feb., 06:23, Kojak <·······@janville.Borg.invalid> wrote:
>> > Just a (silly?) question, why not "comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp" or
>> > "comp.lang.lisp.cl"?
>>
>> Because other Lisp dialects also have their own comp.lang hierarchy
>> (Scheme, Logo, ...). Major languages should be represented their
>> directly. 'Lisp' is more like a general family of languages.
>> You don't have comp.lang.algol.pascal or comp.lang.algol.oberon .
>
> May be retreive all sparse lisp related stuff or dialect
> and group them under comp.lang.lisp tree as:
>
> comp.lang.lisp
> comp.lang.lisp.scheme
> comp.lang.lisp.emacs-lisp
> comp.lang.lisp.an-so-on...
>
> comp.lang.lisp may remain what it is (or rename as common-lisp
> for those who wish). :-)
Well the question is still open on whether scheme is a lisp, or
remains a lisp...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:32:30 +0100,
Pascal J. Bourguignon a écrit :
> Well the question is still open on whether scheme is a lisp, or
> remains a lisp...
Que Sera Sera.
Say a lisp-like, a lisp fork... Time will tell. :-)
--
Jacques.
Kojak wrote:
> Le Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:30:28 -0800 (PST),
> Slobodan Blazeski a écrit :
>
>>> Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
>>> comp.lang.lisp could then
>> [...]
>> Well I can't agree more. If other regular common lispers don't have
>> against I say we should move.
>
> Just a (silly?) question, why not "comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp" or
> "comp.lang.lisp.cl"?
>
> I ask that because there is already "comp.lang.lisp.[franz,mcl,x]"
> then...
>
You People(tm) think way too small. How about:
comp.lang.lisp.bobi
comp.lang.lisp.kenny
comp.lang.lisp.clos.obsessed
too easy?
hth,kth
On 2009-02-10, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kojak wrote:
>> Le Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:30:28 -0800 (PST),
>> Slobodan Blazeski a écrit :
>>
>>>> Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
>>>> comp.lang.lisp could then
>>> [...]
>>> Well I can't agree more. If other regular common lispers don't have
>>> against I say we should move.
>>
>> Just a (silly?) question, why not "comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp" or
>> "comp.lang.lisp.cl"?
>>
>> I ask that because there is already "comp.lang.lisp.[franz,mcl,x]"
>> then...
>>
>
> You People(tm) think way too small. How about:
>
> comp.lang.lisp.bobi
> comp.lang.lisp.kenny
> comp.lang.lisp.clos.obsessed
>
> too easy?
I vote the boorish:
comp.lang.lisp.common
This goes hand in hand with brilliant stuff like ``comp.windows.x'',
which of course should have been ``comp.window.x''. No s, dammit!
Okie, so I'm using a compyooder, so I want the comp hierarchy. And I'm
interested in windows, so comp.windows. Great, and my windows is X, so I want
comp.windows.x. Not comp.windows.microsoft, and definitely not
comp.windows.sliding, which is about high throughput, reliable protocols.
Le Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:33:26 -0500,
Kenneth Tilton a écrit :
> Kojak wrote:
> > Just a (silly?) question, why not "comp.lang.lisp.common-lisp" or
> > "comp.lang.lisp.cl"?
>
> You People(tm) think way too small.
No, just a bit shy...
> How about:
>
> comp.lang.lisp.bobi
> comp.lang.lisp.kenny
> comp.lang.lisp.clos.obsessed
Why not! But don't forget comp.lang.lisp.me-too(tm)
Spring is coming
Tree are growing
The leaves feed the tree
The trolls feed the list
(tm) too.
:-D
--
Jacques.
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> You People(tm) think way too small. How about:
>
> comp.lang.lisp.bobi
> comp.lang.lisp.kenny
> comp.lang.lisp.clos.obsessed
>
> too easy?
You left out the most important one:
comp.lang.lisp.xah
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
On Feb 10, 7:48 pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > You People(tm) think way too small. How about:
>
> > comp.lang.lisp.bobi
> > comp.lang.lisp.kenny
> > comp.lang.lisp.clos.obsessed
>
> > too easy?
>
> You left out the most important one:
>
> comp.lang.lisp.xah
>
> --
> Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
I think limiting Xah to Lisp is not giving credit to the wide-ranging
nature of Xah's contributions.
I would suggest something more like comp.xah, although that would
perhaps leave out his interest in theoretical mathematics.
We might need to try a hierarchy like
xah.math
xah.comp
xah.emacs
xah.emacs.keybindings
xah.emacs.ui.modernization
xah.comp.lisp
xah.comp.lisp.defects
xah.comp.mathematica
xah.xah
xah.swedish.bork.bork.bork
...
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> What's the procedure of creating comp.lang.common-lisp newsgroup ?
See
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
······@corporate-world.lisp.de <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote:
>
> Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> comp.lang.lisp could then be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There
> would be less confusion of the purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It would
> be much clearer that it is NOT about Emacs, Emacs customization, ... and
> especially not about OCAML or F#. I would also be more interested to
> discuss learning Common Lisp, programming with Common Lisp, etc., than for
> example discussing 'Newlisp' or random babbling about Lisp syntax.
The trolls would follow us, because that's the nature of trolls.
The newbies would also follow us, because they want answers to their
questions.
YMMV.
On 2009-02-10, ······@corporate-world.lisp.de <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote:
> Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> comp.lang.lisp could then
> be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There would be less confusion of
> the
> purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It would be much clearer that it is
> NOT
> about Emacs, Emacs customization, ... and especially not about OCAML
> or F#.
That is where you are wrong. The Ruby and F# trolling is specifically
anti-common-lisp, so it would just follow into comp.lang.lisp.common
newsgroup.
A newsgroup that would be more clearly /not/ about these things would be
comp.lang.lisp.moderated.
On 10 Feb., 10:29, Kaz Kylheku <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-02-10, ······@corporate-world.lisp.de <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> > comp.lang.lisp could then
> > be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There would be less confusion of
> > the
> > purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It would be much clearer that it is
> > NOT
> > about Emacs, Emacs customization, ... and especially not about OCAML
> > or F#.
>
> That is where you are wrong. The Ruby and F# trolling is specifically
> anti-common-lisp, so it would just follow into comp.lang.lisp.common
> newsgroup.
Ruby could be. The F#/OCaml guy posts anti-Lisp (not 'Common Lisp')
stuff everywhere. He was just recommending against SICP on
comp.programming
(because SICP does not introduce 'static typing'). SICP is not
known for its Common Lisp content. ;-)
>
> A newsgroup that would be more clearly /not/ about these things would be
> comp.lang.lisp.moderated.
·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> comp.lang.lisp could then be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There
> would be less confusion of the purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It
> would be much clearer that it is NOT about Emacs, Emacs customization,
> ... and especially not about OCAML or F#. I would also be more interested
> to discuss learning Common Lisp, programming with Common Lisp, etc., than
> for example discussing 'Newlisp' or random babbling about Lisp syntax.
I fear it would sacrifice a long tradition for not much reward:
- A comp.lang.common-lisp newsgroup bears the danger of separating the
community which we cannot afford.
- I find it not uninteresting to get some information concerning near
relatives like Scheme or Emacs Lisp. Furthermore, posts about Scheme or
Emacs Lisp in this newsgroup are a possibility to tell people coming from
those languages about CL - and I think this is a very usual path of
coming to CL.
- IMO it is already sufficiently obvious that Ruby, F#, and Ocaml do not
belong here. However, even the Ocaml/F#/Mathematica/Ruby posts might
have some good effects - like the jester at the king's court. At least,
they have kept cll busy for some time.
Nicolas
On 10 Feb., 10:22, Nicolas Neuss <········@math.uni-karlsruhe.de>
wrote:
> ·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> writes:
> > Personally, I would be happy to move to comp.lang.common-lisp.
> > comp.lang.lisp could then be left for 'generic' lisp questions. There
> > would be less confusion of the purpose of comp.lang.common-lisp . It
> > would be much clearer that it is NOT about Emacs, Emacs customization,
> > ... and especially not about OCAML or F#. I would also be more interested
> > to discuss learning Common Lisp, programming with Common Lisp, etc., than
> > for example discussing 'Newlisp' or random babbling about Lisp syntax.
>
> I fear it would sacrifice a long tradition for not much reward:
>
> - A comp.lang.common-lisp newsgroup bears the danger of separating the
> community which we cannot afford.
I think it is different. In comp.lang.lisp we have a non-community
union of people that we can no longer afford.
> - I find it not uninteresting to get some information concerning near
> relatives like Scheme or Emacs Lisp. Furthermore, posts about Scheme or
> Emacs Lisp in this newsgroup are a possibility to tell people coming from
> those languages about CL - and I think this is a very usual path of
> coming to CL.
>
> - IMO it is already sufficiently obvious that Ruby, F#, and Ocaml do not
> belong here. However, even the Ocaml/F#/Mathematica/Ruby posts might
> have some good effects - like the jester at the king's court. At least,
> they have kept cll busy for some time.
>
> Nicolas
comp.lang.lisp should simply stay and be read, it is just that
the Common Lisp topics get a new specific home and possibly
an anchor for a hierarchy. Just like comp.lang.scheme .
comp.lang.scheme is much more focused, compared to comp.lang.lisp.
As a Scheme user I see very specific messages in comp.lang.scheme,
whereas in comp.lang.lisp I have to filter out the general
questions, advocacy, babbling. The signal to noise ration of
comp.lang.lisp is getting lower. This has not been the case
with comp.lang.scheme (IMHO).
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
Subject: Re: What kind of lisp should I learn?
Date:
Message-ID: <87prhrcigz.fsf@galatea.local>
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> Another refurbished reply to avoid giving the same advice over and
> over. I would be grateful for pointing my mistakes or should I add
> something. If I find the useful I will add them in my post.
> http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-kind-of-lisp-should-i-learn.html
It would be more enticing, I'd guess, for newbies, if instead of a
blog page, it was some expert system programmed in Lisp that would ask
them a few pertinent questions and answer: you should learn this lisp
or that lisp.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On Feb 10, 12:13 am, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> > Another refurbished reply to avoid giving the same advice over and
> > over. I would be grateful for pointing my mistakes or should I add
> > something. If I find the useful I will add them in my post.
> >http://tourdelisp.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-kind-of-lisp-should-i-lea...
>
> It would be more enticing, I'd guess, for newbies, if instead of a
> blog page, it was some expert system programmed in Lisp that would ask
> them a few pertinent questions and answer: you should learn this lisp
> or that lisp.
Expert systems, come on that's so 80's. If I do something like that
veterans will start telling war stories about AI winter, instead of
hacking qooxdoo or whatever was that library with unpronounceable
name.
bobi
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__