On 26 Mar, 17:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission.
Hell! Didn't know about that. Let's push it into the standard, my
friend. I wonder why they didn't make that in the first instance.
Couldn't they just see into the future? Isn't CL the right tool for
everything?
And while we are at it, let's trash CL useless macro system. What's
wrong with you, guys? Isn't C preprocessor powerful enough?
> I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and ***Lisp*** have one.
You troll! You've just revealed yourself. Go away! c.l.l. already has
its bizantine troll (I hope it's me)
;-)))))
Hallo,
On Mar 26, 5:05 pm, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and ***Lisp*** have one.
>
> You troll! You've just revealed yourself. Go away! c.l.l. already has
> its bizantine troll (I hope it's me)
>
> ;-)))))
You must be new here.
-alex
On 26 Mar, 18:28, Alex Queiroz <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> On Mar 26, 5:05 pm, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and ***Lisp*** have one.
>
> > You troll! You've just revealed yourself. Go away! c.l.l. already has
> > its bizantine troll (I hope it's me)
>
> > ;-)))))
>
> You must be new here.
Indeed I am. Where are the other trolls? I'm going to fight them. I
wanna be the Highlander Troll!
Cheers ;-)
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:41:24 -0700 (PDT), <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 18:28, Alex Queiroz <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 5:05 pm, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and ***Lisp*** have one.
>>
>> > You troll! You've just revealed yourself. Go away! c.l.l. already has
>> > its bizantine troll (I hope it's me)
>>
>> > ;-)))))
>>
>> � � �You must be new here.
>
> Indeed I am. Where are the other trolls? I'm going to fight them. I
> wanna be the Highlander Troll!
There can be only ONE! No matter how many names he hides behind.
--
If I owned this place and hell, I'd rent it out and live in hell.
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 18:28, Alex Queiroz <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hallo,
> >
> > On Mar 26, 5:05 pm, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and ***Lisp*** have one.
> >
> > > You troll! You've just revealed yourself. Go away! c.l.l. already
> > > has its bizantine troll (I hope it's me)
> >
> > > ;-)))))
> >
> > You must be new here.
>
> Indeed I am. Where are the other trolls? I'm going to fight them. I
> wanna be the Highlander Troll!
<http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html>
Unfortunately not updated as often as desired :)
regards,
Marek
On Mar 26, 10:41 am, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 18:28, Alex Queiroz <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hallo,
>
> > On Mar 26, 5:05 pm, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and ***Lisp*** have one.
>
> > > You troll! You've just revealed yourself. Go away! c.l.l. already has
> > > its bizantine troll (I hope it's me)
>
> > > ;-)))))
>
> > You must be new here.
>
> Indeed I am. Where are the other trolls? I'm going to fight them. I
> wanna be the Highlander Troll!
Well, knock yourself out. But be aware; this is a Lisp newsgroup; in
order to inherit the others' strength you must cut off their cdrs
instead.
Duane
On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> kt
The most obvious thing to roll out of a google search is
http://common-lisp.net/project/gzip-stream/.
~TJ
TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
| > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
| > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
|
| The most obvious thing to roll out of a google search is
| http://common-lisp.net/project/gzip-stream/.
+---------------
The most obvious thing to roll out of my netnews archives was this:
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: inflate implementation (new opensource module)
From: John Foderaro <···@unspamx.franz.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:58:03 -0800
Message-ID: <··························@news.dnai.com>
I've just published the code to Inflate a byte stream
compressed by the Deflate algorithm. Deflate is
ths most common compression algorithm used in zip files
and jar files. It is also the compression algorithm
used by gzip.
I have code to add this inflator to a simple-stream
via encapsulation, and I'll be releasing that in a few weeks.
Details and code can be found here:
http://opensource.franz.com/deflate/index.html
I've only tested in on ACL 6.0 and ACL 6.1.
...
and this:
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Q: easy to use, efficient code for reading ZIPed or GZIPed text files?
From: David Lichteblau <···········@lichteblau.com>
Date: 15 Aug 2007 16:50:36 GMT
Message-ID: <··························@radon.home.lichteblau.com>
...
Put the following code into the package Franz' inflate routines are in.
(For example using the ZIP package, which includes inflate.cl.)
Use like this:
(with-open-file (s "passwd.gz" :element-type '(unsigned-byte 8))
(zip::skip-gzip-header s)
(let ((r (flexi-streams:make-flexi-stream (zip::make-inflate-stream s))))
(loop for line = (read-line r nil)
while line
do (print line))))
"root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash"
"daemon:x:1:1:daemon:/usr/sbin:/bin/sh"
"bin:x:2:2:bin:/bin:/bin/sh"
"sys:x:3:3:sys:/dev:/bin/sh"
...
;;;; (c) David Lichteblau, X11-style license
(in-package :zip)
(defclass inflate-stream
(trivial-gray-stream-mixin fundamental-binary-input-stream)
... )
...[remainder elided, see original article for full text]...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
TJ Atkins wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>>
>> kt
>
> The most obvious thing to roll out of a google search is
> http://common-lisp.net/project/gzip-stream/.
>
> ~TJ
I was looking for a recommendation from someone with experience and
knowledge, not a little text field on their browser for search!
But thx, my googlery did not turn that up.
On Mar 26, 1:41 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
You forgot Perl, kenny. :)
On 26 Mar, 19:29, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 1:41 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> You forgot Perl, kenny. :)
Right. I'd bet Perl has even a special operator for that. Or it was
meant to be available in Perl 6? I don't remember. It doesn't matter,
Perl 6 is just around the corner anyway.
On Mar 26, 4:26 pm, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 19:29, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You forgot Perl, kenny. :)
>
> Right. I'd bet Perl has even a special operator for that. Or it was
> meant to be available in Perl 6? I don't remember. It doesn't matter,
> Perl 6 is just around the corner anyway.
It's been for the past 4 years or so.
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 4:26 pm, Elena <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 26 Mar, 19:29, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You forgot Perl, kenny. :)
> >
> > Right. I'd bet Perl has even a special operator for that. Or it was
> > meant to be available in Perl 6? I don't remember. It doesn't
> > matter, Perl 6 is just around the corner anyway.
>
> It's been for the past 4 years or so.
But now they have a VM at least.
regards,
Marek
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:26:45 -0700 (PDT), <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Right. I'd bet Perl has even a special operator for that. Or it was
> meant to be available in Perl 6? I don't remember. It doesn't matter,
> Perl 6 is just around the corner anyway.
No no no.
Perl 6 is 'on the horizon'! Really.
You know the horizon right?
That which recedes as fast as you approach?
Somedays I really wonder how my mind survived Perl, except when I'm
wondering if it did. I can hardly read my old stuff nowdays without
an ill feeling...but those iron bands are broken now :-)
--
If I owned this place and hell, I'd rent it out and live in hell.
namekuseijin wrote:
> On Mar 26, 1:41 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> You forgot Perl, kenny. :)
Is some Perl lunatic spamming this NG on a daily basis?*
kt
* That was the criterion.**
** I missed C++.
On 26 mar, 17:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
Funny, it looks like neither AllegroServe nor Hunchentoot (I cannot
believe I've learned to spell that correctly on the first try) can be
configured to do automatic gzip compression. How 5 years ago!
Fortunately, it won't involve real programming, just plugging the
pieces together.
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
One of the sadder moments of ILC was at the "Future of Lisp" panel when
an audience member explained why Common Lisp is a failure: "I mean,
what's the _one_ way to open a socket?" Sadly everyone let him continue
in this line of reasoning instead of shouting him down with cries of
"Duh! Usocket! CFFI! CXML! etc!"
Zach
Zach Beane <····@xach.com> writes:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> One of the sadder moments of ILC was at the "Future of Lisp" panel when
> an audience member explained why Common Lisp is a failure: "I mean,
> what's the _one_ way to open a socket?" Sadly everyone let him continue
> in this line of reasoning instead of shouting him down with cries of
> "Duh! Usocket! CFFI! CXML! etc!"
>
> Zach
Wow. They showed up at ILC too? What is with these people?
I don't think I've ever attended a PHP conference just to tell all the
PHP programmers how bad I think their language of choice is (or ever for
any reason for that matter).
Maybe if we tell them to go away and move on in all caps they'll listen.
Zach Beane <····@xach.com> writes:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> One of the sadder moments of ILC was at the "Future of Lisp" panel when
> an audience member explained why Common Lisp is a failure: "I mean,
> what's the _one_ way to open a socket?" Sadly everyone let him continue
> in this line of reasoning instead of shouting him down with cries of
> "Duh! Usocket! CFFI! CXML! etc!"
Du jour, there are at least three good ways to manipulate sockets:
Whatever your implementation provides, Usocket and IOlib.
What many people do not seem to fathom is that all three ways are
_perfectly reasonable_, and they're not a bar to each other in any
way. I.e. their existence is perfectly legitimate, and we're all better
off that they do co-exist.
Choosing your implementation's socket support directly means
convenience, good integration, perhaps good documentation, and
support. At the cost of portability.
Choosing Usocket means you gain portability across Lisp
implementations. But you may lose some flexibility because it cannot
necessarily support any detail of one implementation that are not
supported by other implementations.
Choosing IOlib means being able to manipulate sockets on an
OS-level. Thanks to CFFI this is reasonably portable across Lisp
implementations, but not portable across Operating Systems.
One thing that Lisp taught me, in particular that Kent Pitman taught me
through the treasure of his writings, and postings to this group, is
that Life Is a Tradeoff.
-T.
> From: "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <····@freebits.de.invalid>
> One thing that Lisp taught me, in particular that Kent Pitman
> taught me through the treasure of his writings, and postings to
> this group, is that Life Is a Tradeoff.
You missed your big chance to coin the Acronoym of the Day!
So I took up the challenge, and paraphrasing Elvis Presley's (Are
You Lonesome Tonight) quote from Shakespeare: Life Is **Some** Play!
(Yeah, in Act 2 you changed, and seemed strange, and as Jimmy Rogers
would say, "It's Over". A play that's over already in Act 2.
That's **some* play!!! I feel like I've been played.)
Even better fitting your original meaning: Life Is Substitute Payoff.
(All your life you always wanted one thing, but you got some
substitute instead, and learned to live with it after all.
For example, when you were a kid you wanted an interactive Algol,
and for a while Pratt's CGOL and Hearn's RLISP fascinated you, but
you learned the pain of such notation compared to s-expressions, so
you settled for s-expressions in the end, not what you originally
thought you wanted, but actually a lot better in practice.)
<OT>All my life, I always wanted to make love,
to a creator of Bonobo pornography.
twitter.com/CalRobert tinyurl.com/bonobs
There once was a lady named Chivers,
Who watched her bonobos in reverse.
They smoked, then they fucked,
then fore-played, then stripped.
A reversal of sexual intercourse.</OT>
Zach Beane wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> One of the sadder moments of ILC was at the "Future of Lisp" panel when
> an audience member explained why Common Lisp is a failure: "I mean,
> what's the _one_ way to open a socket?" Sadly everyone let him continue
> in this line of reasoning instead of shouting him down with cries of
> "Duh! Usocket! CFFI! CXML! etc!"
>
> Zach
Ok, folks the bar is now set at 1 message and 8 min for the 2009 Fastest
Taking Of A Thread OT Award.
But thx for the help on sockets!
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Zach Beane wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>>
>> One of the sadder moments of ILC was at the "Future of Lisp" panel when
>> an audience member explained why Common Lisp is a failure: "I mean,
>> what's the _one_ way to open a socket?" Sadly everyone let him continue
>> in this line of reasoning instead of shouting him down with cries of
>> "Duh! Usocket! CFFI! CXML! etc!"
>>
>> Zach
>
> Ok, folks the bar is now set at 1 message and 8 min for the 2009
> Fastest Taking Of A Thread OT Award.
>
> But thx for the help on sockets!
Oh, I thought you already knew about Salza2 and were satirizing the guy
from ILC. Sorry.
Zach
On Mar 26, 9:53 am, Zach Beane <····@xach.com> wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> One of the sadder moments of ILC was at the "Future of Lisp" panel when
> an audience member explained why Common Lisp is a failure: "I mean,
> what's the _one_ way to open a socket?" Sadly everyone let him continue
> in this line of reasoning instead of shouting him down with cries of
> "Duh! Usocket! CFFI! CXML! etc!"
Well, I was one of the panelists, and as is the case in this forum,
where I tend not to respond directly to trolling unless in great fun,
so I waited and put together an argument for such libraries as CFFI
and others. The argument was a deeper one anyway, not against the
lack of sockets specifically, but against the spec in general; the
argument was used that CL died in 1994 when the spec was finalized,
and that there had been no new developments in CL since then (Scott
McKay, who was on the panel, said that, and I took major exception to
it). Of course that's not true; one need only look at the many
packages whose names start with "cl-" to know that work is going on
constantly in CL and to CL.
Duane
On 26 mar, 13:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> kt
This is the worst kind of critic there is.
"The language FOO doesn't have feature BAR, therefore it sucks."
It is more or less like "The book FOO doesn't talk about BAR,
therefore it sucks".
If you want to know whether Lisp has the feature that you want, ask
for it. If Lisp doesn't do what you need, just don't use it. But it
doesn't mean Lisp is not a great tool - and it is.
Grow up.
On 26 mar, 21:08, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 mar, 13:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> > kt
>
> This is the worst kind of critic there is.
>
> "The language FOO doesn't have feature BAR, therefore it sucks."
>
> It is more or less like "The book FOO doesn't talk about BAR,
> therefore it sucks".
>
> If you want to know whether Lisp has the feature that you want, ask
> for it. If Lisp doesn't do what you need, just don't use it. But it
> doesn't mean Lisp is not a great tool - and it is.
>
> Grow up.
What the hell? This guy can't be for real, can he?
On Mar 26, 3:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 mar, 13:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> > kt
>
> This is the worst kind of critic there is.
>
> "The language FOO doesn't have feature BAR, therefore it sucks."
>
> It is more or less like "The book FOO doesn't talk about BAR,
> therefore it sucks".
>
> If you want to know whether Lisp has the feature that you want, ask
> for it. If Lisp doesn't do what you need, just don't use it. But it
> doesn't mean Lisp is not a great tool - and it is.
>
> Grow up.
I hesitate to say it, but... Lurk moar, newfag. ^_^
~TJ
On 26 mar, 18:07, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 3:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 mar, 13:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> > > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> > > kt
>
> > This is the worst kind of critic there is.
>
> > "The language FOO doesn't have feature BAR, therefore it sucks."
>
> > It is more or less like "The book FOO doesn't talk about BAR,
> > therefore it sucks".
>
> > If you want to know whether Lisp has the feature that you want, ask
> > for it. If Lisp doesn't do what you need, just don't use it. But it
> > doesn't mean Lisp is not a great tool - and it is.
>
> > Grow up.
>
> I hesitate to say it, but... Lurk moar, newfag. ^_^
>
> ~TJ
Ok, I don't get it. At all. But sorry for lurking around, then.
On Mar 26, 5:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 mar, 18:07, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 3:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 26 mar, 13:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> > > > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> > > > kt
>
> > > This is the worst kind of critic there is.
>
> > > "The language FOO doesn't have feature BAR, therefore it sucks."
>
> > > It is more or less like "The book FOO doesn't talk about BAR,
> > > therefore it sucks".
>
> > > If you want to know whether Lisp has the feature that you want, ask
> > > for it. If Lisp doesn't do what you need, just don't use it. But it
> > > doesn't mean Lisp is not a great tool - and it is.
>
> > > Grow up.
>
> > I hesitate to say it, but... Lurk moar, newfag. ^_^
>
> > ~TJ
>
> Ok, I don't get it. At all. But sorry for lurking around, then.
The point is that Kenny is a veteran Lisp hacker. He also purposely
trolls sometimes to get an answer out of the list. ^_^ In this case,
he was *asking* for a gzipping utility.
~TJ
On 26 Mar, 23:19, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point is that Kenny is a veteran Lisp hacker. He also purposely
> trolls sometimes to get an answer out of the list. ^_^ In this case,
> he was *asking* for a gzipping utility.
Yup, I realized that when a lisper posted a solution. In the first
instance, I thought it was just making fun of recent newbies' posts,
and went for it.
As I have just commented in another thread, lispers are both smart and
funny. I'll lurk here hoping to absorbe such attitude ^_^
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:16:01 -0700 (PDT), <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I have just commented in another thread, lispers are both smart and
> funny. I'll lurk here hoping to absorbe such attitude ^_^
You left out seriously twisted.
but I mean that in a good way.
--
If I owned this place and hell, I'd rent it out and live in hell.
On 26 mar, 19:19, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 5:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 mar, 18:07, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 3:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 26 mar, 13:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> > > > > transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> > > > > kt
>
> > > > This is the worst kind of critic there is.
>
> > > > "The language FOO doesn't have feature BAR, therefore it sucks."
>
> > > > It is more or less like "The book FOO doesn't talk about BAR,
> > > > therefore it sucks".
>
> > > > If you want to know whether Lisp has the feature that you want, ask
> > > > for it. If Lisp doesn't do what you need, just don't use it. But it
> > > > doesn't mean Lisp is not a great tool - and it is.
>
> > > > Grow up.
>
> > > I hesitate to say it, but... Lurk moar, newfag. ^_^
>
> > > ~TJ
>
> > Ok, I don't get it. At all. But sorry for lurking around, then.
>
> The point is that Kenny is a veteran Lisp hacker. He also purposely
> trolls sometimes to get an answer out of the list. ^_^ In this case,
> he was *asking* for a gzipping utility.
>
> ~TJ
Oh, my bad! :) LOL...
Funny, though, I didn't realize that.
gugamilare wrote:
> On 26 mar, 19:19, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 5:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 26 mar, 18:07, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 3:08 pm, gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 26 mar, 13:41, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>>>>>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>>>>>> kt
>>>>> This is the worst kind of critic there is.
>>>>> "The language FOO doesn't have feature BAR, therefore it sucks."
>>>>> It is more or less like "The book FOO doesn't talk about BAR,
>>>>> therefore it sucks".
>>>>> If you want to know whether Lisp has the feature that you want, ask
>>>>> for it. If Lisp doesn't do what you need, just don't use it. But it
>>>>> doesn't mean Lisp is not a great tool - and it is.
>>>>> Grow up.
>>>> I hesitate to say it, but... Lurk moar, newfag. ^_^
>>>> ~TJ
>>> Ok, I don't get it. At all. But sorry for lurking around, then.
>> The point is that Kenny is a veteran Lisp hacker. He also purposely
>> trolls sometimes to get an answer out of the list. ^_^ In this case,
>> he was *asking* for a gzipping utility.
>>
>> ~TJ
>
> Oh, my bad! :) LOL...
> Funny, though, I didn't realize that.
RTFM!:
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-hell-is-fortune-cookie-file-anyway.html
"Start this thread again. Change the subject to "Lisp Sucks! Molasses is
faster!!" and post the code and some timings and the whole community
will be working for you for free."
hth,kxo
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:08:33 -0700 (PDT), gugamilare <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 mar, 18:07, TJ Atkins <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I hesitate to say it, but... Lurk moar, newfag. �^_^
>
> Ok, I don't get it. At all. But sorry for lurking around, then.
You got it backwards. 'Lurk more' :P
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
Does not compute.
I parse your sentences as
"E does not have X. I think A, B, C, D, and E have X."
So which is it?
Either way, what's wrong with these libs?
http://www.xach.com/lisp/salza2/
http://www.method-combination.net/lisp/chipz/
http://common-lisp.net/project/zlib/
- Daniel
D Herring wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
>> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> Does not compute.
>
> I parse your sentences as
> "E does not have X. I think A, B, C, D, and E have X."
>
> So which is it?
The twit was probably trying to be funny or clever.
>
> Either way, what's wrong with these libs?
> http://www.xach.com/lisp/salza2/
> http://www.method-combination.net/lisp/chipz/
> http://common-lisp.net/project/zlib/
Exactly!
kt *trying to understand why there is not one answer*
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:45:31 -0400, <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> D Herring wrote:
>>
>> Either way, what's wrong with these libs?
>> http://www.xach.com/lisp/salza2/
>> http://www.method-combination.net/lisp/chipz/
>> http://common-lisp.net/project/zlib/
>
> Exactly!
>
> kt *trying to understand why there is not one answer*
He steps to the plate with the bat of TIMTOWTDI
and knocks the * outa da park
--
If I owned this place and hell, I'd rent it out and live in hell.
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> kt *trying to understand why there is not one answer*
Because you keep writing apps and never took the time to unify libs?
;)
- Daniel
On 27 mar, 03:45, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> D Herring wrote:
> > Either way, what's wrong with these libs?
> >http://www.xach.com/lisp/salza2/
> >http://www.method-combination.net/lisp/chipz/
> >http://common-lisp.net/project/zlib/
>
> Exactly!
>
> kt *trying to understand why there is not one answer*
Don't know whqt chipz is. I would probably go with Salza2, knowing
that its author is an active web developer. Why more than one?
Compression isn't that hard to get right; I know I've rolled my own
gunzip before, rather than bother figuring out what library to use, if
it works right, etc. Probably didn't save any time, but I probably
didn't lose any either.
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:41:18 -0400, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
Those 'other' languages need an entire library to do that? Teheh...
On Mar 26, 6:41 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lisp doesn't even have a library to compress a string for interweb
> transmission. I bet Ruby and F# and Clojure and Qi and Lisp have one.
>
> kt
Why bother with that? I don't use Lisp to do any of the boring
compressing or encryption (ssl) work; this is something lighttpd can
handle for me. I don't even use lisp to transfer any static data
(files) at all; Lisp just handles ajax/comet "messages".
So I use the following setup (Google will screw this up, but it should
be a single non-wrapped line with ascii-arrows and stuff....):
my lisp stuff <--mod_proxy-- lighttpd --mod_deflate/mod_compress/
mod_ssl--> world/internet/the-users
Those mod_-thingies are part of lighttpd. Apache has similar modules
and features.