Funding/Supporting future Common Lisp infrastructure development
avi
Many of you will have noticed the call for funding Rich Hickey made
over at the Clojure group a few days ago.
In barely two days more than a hundred of Clojure users and half of
dozen companies together donated more than half of what Rich proposed
to make his dedicated work focused and sustainable in 2010.
In a similar way a few years ago Bram Moolenar made possible for
people to support Vim development by donating and voting for features.
http://www.vim.org/sponsor/vote_results.php
http://www.vim.org/sponsor/hall_of_honour.php
Surely other examples will exist of such free software bounty systems
set up in order to support dedicated developers.
As a Lisp newbie, I would like such central incentive infrastructure
also to exist for the free software community of Common Lisp. Such a
system would both be a nice way to recompense the developers for their
work on free Lisp software and to find out what features users deem
necessary and would like to see worked on.
What do you think whether such a bounty infrastructure would work for
the Common Lisp community? Also, does somebody have the experience to
set this up (since I certainly don't)?
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> What do you think whether such a bounty infrastructure would work for
> the Common Lisp community? Also, does somebody have the experience to
> set this up (since I certainly don't)?
http://sourceforge.net/donate/?group_id=1355
and so on for the other CL projects hosted on sourceforge...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Elena
> What do you think whether such a bounty infrastructure would work for
> the Common Lisp community?
No, it wouldn't work. Rich Hickey has built a community around
Clojure. No such community exists around any CL implementation.
Rainer Joswig
<03571880-502b-479c...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Elena <egar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Communities in the CL world exist and work.
SBCL for example has not one main implementor.
Still it has a community.
Just Monday and Tuesday was the SBCL10 workshop in London:
http://sbcl10.sbcl.org/
SBCL has a very active community of users.
Clozure CL has an active community and Clozure (the company)
has been paid for work on Clozure CL by users.
There was a call for example to support work on the
GUI. Dan Weinreb has presented a long list of
improvements to Clozure CL at the last
European Common Lisp meeting that have been paid
for by ITA Software.
LispWorks, a commercial implementation of Common Lisp
has an active community of users. I get a constant
stream of mails from their user mailing list.
Work on LispWorks is paid by users buying licenses,
updates, service contracts, etcs. A new version
of LispWorks is in beta.
Any work on one of the commercial implementations is funded
by the users. If these users are a community is a question,
nearest comes LispWorks and their users.
The free/open source implementations have communities.
The largest is probably SBCL, which is very much
community driven. Clozure CL has the difference that
the implementation is open source, yet supported
and driven by a company. Other communities may be
smaller. ECL for example has some users and a lead
developer. Funding him would directly benefit ECL
and the applications that use it (Maxima and others).
Also, there are lots of people who work on libraries
and tools, now. There is less need to fund just one guy,
but to keep multiple projects going - usually
done by more than one guy.
The open source world of CL has a lot of tools:
* Common Lisp directory
* paste.lisp.org
* common-lisp.net
* cliki.net
...
and so on. This open source community is also funded
by its users. If you want to help the projects,
fund the maintainers or provide other help (like
code, documentation, bug reports, ...).
d...@telent.net
> In article
> <03571880-502b-479c...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Elena <egar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No, it wouldn't work. Rich Hickey has built a community around
>> Clojure. No such community exists around any CL implementation.
>
> Communities in the CL world exist and work.
>
> SBCL for example has not one main implementor.
> Still it has a community.
>
> Just Monday and Tuesday was the SBCL10 workshop in London:
> http://sbcl10.sbcl.org/
Yes, I was there. Elena's assertion seems quite bizarre to me
[ snip other stuff I agree with ]
-dan
Zach Beane
Clozure recently raised $20,000 for someone to hack on their IDE.
http://ccl.clozure.com/blog/?p=28
Zach
Rainer Joswig
Zach Beane <xa...@xach.com> wrote:
Not to forget that NASA bought a source license of MCL and
paid for the creation of what became OpenMCL (which
was renamed to Clozure CL even later).
History of OpenMCL:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/seminar/openmcl-overview.pdf
Actually one could say that Clozure CL has one
of the longest continuing language implementation
community - since 1985
to now. The original developers are still
active and some long time users are still busy.
Terje for example, recently released MCLIDE, an
IDE for MCL. He works on a Clozure CL version, too.
Saying that Common Lisp does not have user communities
around implementations is completely wrong. Especially
since some of these communities keep on working since
two and a half decade and keep their favorite
Lisp branch alive.
There is the Spice Lisp (pre Common Lisp!),
CMUCL, SBCL branch. With a commercial
derivative of CMUCL: Scieneer CL. LispWorks
also has traces of Spice Lisp.
There is the MCL, OpenMCL, CLozure CL branch.
There is the KCL (1985, IIRC), AKCL, ..., GCL, ECLS, ECL branch.
One of those is always kept alive, since it
allows easy compilation to C.
The vendors of commercial Lisps are active, too.
Franz just had a meeting with japanese Lisp users:
http://jp.franz.com/base/seminar-2009-11-20.html
Franz started before Common Lisp, the company
itself started in 1984.
It is just nothing spectacular new. For example
Lisp conferences are being held since 1980.
Nowadays there is a slight emphasis on CL
at these conferences (Scheme users have
their own meetings). Rich Hickey was there and
talked about Clojure and it was reported that
even grey-bearded Lispers were impressed.
Clojure is new and exciting, so some people
tend to think it is the only active Lisp
community in the universe.
I'm also not very surprised that Rich got much
of the desired funding in a few days. Other
Lisps had been funded before and given the
activity around Clojure, plus its slant on
being a practical new language on top
of the Java infrastructure makes it attractive
for some people. Rich is one of the better
language designers and implementors (especially
if you compare it some of the new languages
from recent years)
and his work has 'sex appeal'. But generally the Lisp
community has several excellent implementors.
Some people from the outside may have no idea how
much knowhow is embedded in the various implementations.
Take the recent release of GHC Haskell.
It still hasn't got a 64bit version for Mac OS X.
In the Common Lisp world I can any of
ACL, LispWorks, CCL, SBCL and CLISP - all have 64bit
versions on my Mac...
Duane Rettig
> Saying that Common Lisp does not have user communities
> around implementations is completely wrong. Especially
> since some of these communities keep on working since
> two and a half decade and keep their favorite
> Lisp branch alive.
Agreed.
[...]
> The vendors of commercial Lisps are active, too.
> Franz just had a meeting with japanese Lisp users:
> http://jp.franz.com/base/seminar-2009-11-20.html
Yes. I don't think the western world sees the impact that Lisp has
had in the Japanese world. It's likely that it's a bit harder to do
google research on this subject, because unless you know Japanese,
your eyes glaze over when hitting a Japanese website. But they're
there, in numbers.
> Franz started before Common Lisp, the company
> itself started in 1984.
And even before that, there was a Franz Lisp (pre-Common Lisp)
community, which was instigated in Berkeley and which involved those
who would eventually start Franz Inc, as a business. At that time,
there were so many 68020 machines with different operating systems on
them, and Franz Lisp was so popular as being part of the BSD
distribution, that requests kept coming in for a port to this or that
operating system, and that made a good business case for putting
together a company for that purpose.
Duane
gary.schiltz
Wow, thanks for the blast from the past about Franz Lisp. I wrote my
first AI programs in Franz Lisp on a VAX 11/750 running BSD in 1983
(grad school AI classes at Kansas State University). I also used it to
parse Sowa's Conceptual graphs and store them in a frame system, as
part of my thesis work. I didn't have a reference manual, but managed
to borrow a pre-publication copy of Wilensky's Lispcraft from my major
professor. This was before CL and SLIME, so it was a matter of
switching between 'vi' and 'lisp' on a VT100 dumb terminal with ^Z.
And then writing the thesis in nroff and printing it on an impact-
wheel printer... Amazing what a 32MB machine would do, especially when
sharing it with 20 graduate students and a professor working on
tweaking a Simula compiler. Man, are we spoiled these days :-)
verec
[...]
> Many of you will have noticed the call for funding Rich Hickey made
> over at the Clojure group a few days ago.
[...]
> As a Lisp newbie, I would like such central incentive infrastructure
> also to exist for the free software community of Common Lisp.
This is just not going to happen.
Rich Hickey has a story. And a vision. He doesn't
disagree with himself as the single Clojure outside
voice.
CLers keep moaning, without vision but only envy and
disdain, lust for a glorious past forever dead.
Clojure challenges the status quo (state vs identity
vs value) CL *is* the status quo.
Clojure offers hope, and motivates towards new frontiers
(working, scalable parallelism) shunning OO and mutable
state, while CL keeps grinding the same old axes (aspects?
closer to mop? cells?)
People remember Lisp, the 7 primitives, code is data is code,
the ying-yang "eval/apply of page 13", not the IBM 704 (or whatever
that was, who cares?) that gave us the ugly car/cdr legacy.
The IBM 704 is as relevant to McCarthy's Lisp as the JVM is
relevant to Clojure today: not. Or not much.
What is relevant is the new directions that Clojure sets for
us, while, finally, pushing to the forefront the essence of
Lisp (as above).
Rich Hickey didn't invent persistent data structure anymore
than McCarthy did invent Church lamdda calculus.
McCarthy was the catalyst that made code as data and "pure"
function, legitimising recursion.
Hickey is the catalyst who bridges pure functional (well
understood) and mutable state (much less well understood)
in a compelling way.
Clojure brings *questions* to the table. CL only has *answers*[1]
People don't pay (donate) for what they already have.
People pay for what they want but don't have yet.
They pay for "dreams", for projections of themselves in
the future, not for deeds commited in the past and long
(and best) forgotten.
CL is (still!) dead! Long live Clojure!
(though it is probably better to be as dead as CL than
as stillborn as Arc ... did he say willing to increase the
number of his ennemies :-)
--
JFB
[1] My paraphrasing of a quote attributed to Picasso.
Jochen Schmidt
> On 2009-12-17 17:32:56 +0000, avi <ant...@googlemail.com> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > Many of you will have noticed the call for funding Rich Hickey made
> > over at the Clojure group a few days ago.
> [...]
> > As a Lisp newbie, I would like such central incentive infrastructure
> > also to exist for the free software community of Common Lisp.
>
> This is just not going to happen.
>
> Rich Hickey has a story. And a vision. He doesn't
> disagree with himself as the single Clojure outside
> voice.
He has visions? I hold it with Helmut Schmidt (Chancelor of Germany
1974-1982)
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen."
(translation by me)
"(anyone) who has visions should go to a doctor".
;-)
> CLers keep moaning, without vision but only envy and
> disdain, lust for a glorious past forever dead.
Huh? Not my impression.
> Clojure challenges the status quo (state vs identity
> vs value) CL *is* the status quo.
> Clojure offers hope, and motivates towards new frontiers
> (working, scalable parallelism) shunning OO and mutable
> state, while CL keeps grinding the same old axes (aspects?
> closer to mop? cells?)
Clojures pure, immutable functional programming, persistent
datastructures, STM, abstraction of state and alternative approaches
to concurrent programming is not really new. Haskell had it for years
now. What Haskell really lacks is a solid implementation running on
the JVM (or even CLR). This is what Clojure offers for Haskellers and
others now to some degree. Thats cool! But I don't see why Clojure and
Common Lisp has to be mutual exclusive.
Sometimes I get the feeling that all those trolls moaning around on
c.l.l (and creating nothing) are now over at clojure. I don't care
were they are - they do not make a change to anything. In some years
there will be a new place were they go, Clojure will be called dead by
them but will really be a solid tool for those who actually do
something.
> People remember Lisp, the 7 primitives, code is data is code,
> the ying-yang "eval/apply of page 13", not the IBM 704 (or whatever
> that was, who cares?) that gave us the ugly car/cdr legacy.
Seriously: Was that really a problem for you in the past? You can
implement your own datastructures so easily in CL. I've implemented
Clojures persistent vectors in CL in less than 1 hour - it isn't
really rocket science, you know. There even are ready made libraries
for things like this (fset for example).
> The IBM 704 is as relevant to McCarthy's Lisp as the JVM is
> relevant to Clojure today: not. Or not much.
Do you really want to argue that the functions CAR and CDR are
something like coding IBM 704 assembler? Its an abstraction, nothing
else. If that *would* be the only thing Rich Hickey did with Clojure
it wouldn't be interesting at all.
> What is relevant is the new directions that Clojure sets for
> us, while, finally, pushing to the forefront the essence of
> Lisp (as above).
Who is "us"?
> Rich Hickey didn't invent persistent data structure anymore
> than McCarthy did invent Church lamdda calculus.
So what?
> McCarthy was the catalyst that made code as data and "pure"
> function, legitimising recursion.
>
> Hickey is the catalyst who bridges pure functional (well
> understood) and mutable state (much less well understood)
> in a compelling way.
I disagree - Haskell actually did this before, and it is not
surprising that Clojure got alot of mindset from Haskell(ers). Clojure
is a pragmatic tool. It *has* good ideas and it is on its way to be a
solid tool. I don't think that Haskell or Common Lisp or any other
language has to "die" for this to happen.
> Clojure brings *questions* to the table. CL only has *answers*[1]
didn't get it (sorry).
> People don't pay (donate) for what they already have.
> People pay for what they want but don't have yet.
> They pay for "dreams", for projections of themselves in
> the future, not for deeds commited in the past and long
> (and best) forgotten.
Well, people pay for Clozure CL funding and its thriving really well.
I personally support Lispworks because they actually do a really cool
job delivering a rich Lisp IDE and a solid compiler and runtime. They
also recognized concurrent programming as an important topic and they
offer solutions and the tools to build your own, if one is still not
happy. In the most practical sense: Clojure is no viable alternative
to Lispworks for me - absolutely not.
> CL is (still!) dead! Long live Clojure!
> (though it is probably better to be as dead as CL than
> as stillborn as Arc ... did he say willing to increase the
> number of his ennemies :-)
The Clojure of today is the dead clojure of tomorrow. Its dying every
day ;-) Its changing so quickly that its sometimes difficult to see
what language it actually is. I actually think it has a lot of cool
ideas and we will see how much of them survive long enough to get
taken over to other languages (including CL). CL isn't standing still.
I'm really thrilled by the efforts of so many creators in the Common
Lisp community. I'm in there since 10 years now - and I can tell you
it was a very different world for CL in 1999.(Sadly, like Haskell
today - and I really wish Haskell to thrive too!).
ciao,
Jochen
verec
> But I don't see why Clojure and Common Lisp has to be mutual exclusive.
How many good JavaS do you have? How many PythonS, HaskellS, RubyS ?
When the King is dead, let's just welcome the new King.
> Sometimes I get the feeling that all those trolls moaning around on
> c.l.l (and creating nothing) are now over at clojure.
At least some of those "trolls" (myself for example) have contributed
$$$ to Clojure in a way that no other CL has ever enthused them (me)
to do.
> Seriously: Was that really a problem for you in the past? You can
> implement your own datastructures so easily in CL.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I can even go down to assembly and rewrite
everything. Maybe I should consider binary too, end just key in
everything one On/Off switch at a time ...
>> What is relevant is the new directions that Clojure sets for
>> us, while, finally, pushing to the forefront the essence of
>> Lisp (as above).
>
> Who is "us"?
All those guys pissed off by the closed mind set of CLers, who
understand Lisp (as opposed to CL or Scheme), and had been wishing,
for years, that some dictator would emerge and take the lead.
For a time I (we) thought that would be Paul Graham and Arc. But
after much disapointment, completely out of the blue, Rich Hickey
popped up from the void with his brilliant synthesis of old and
new ideas, moving us towards parrallelism in a way no other language
has yet.
>> People don't pay (donate) for what they already have.
>> People pay for what they want but don't have yet.
>> They pay for "dreams", for projections of themselves in
>> the future, not for deeds commited in the past and long
>> (and best) forgotten.
>
> Well, people pay for Clozure CL funding and its thriving really well.
> I personally support Lispworks because they actually do a really cool
> job delivering a rich Lisp IDE and a solid compiler and runtime. They
> also recognized concurrent programming as an important topic and they
> offer solutions and the tools to build your own, if one is still not
> happy. In the most practical sense: Clojure is no viable alternative
> to Lispworks for me - absolutely not.
That's all a question of momentum. And momentum has left CL years if not
decades ago. But is now pushing Clojure forward.
I have used LW and CloZure. The only plus they have, for *me* is a not even
half decent IDE (as opposed to *nothing* for everything else, including
CloJure)
For me, the for ever emacs/command-line hater, to switch to Clojure which
doesn't even have anything even remotely ressembling an IDE, is a testament
to the few "killer" features that had me overcome the CLI/REPL barriers:
- litteral support for sets, maps,
- multi arity functions
- pervasive destructuring
- and loads of clever details (map/vectors as a function of their key/index),
`let' as it should always have been (ie: let*), killing of redundant
parens in let and cond, etc ...
After years of sttutering in Lisp, I finally find myself able to speak!
*that* is liberation that no other Lisp ever came close to allow me to.
And I guess that is the reason that a lot of people like me who had had
lust for Lips for years, but couldn't even think of any practical
application in their everyday work, are suddenly re-awakening to Lisp,
and finally reaping the benefits that only had been pipe dreams in their
eyes all along.
That is Huge.
--
JFB
jos...@lisp.de
> On 2009-12-20 12:09:55 +0000, Jochen Schmidt <j...@crispylogics.com> said:
>
> > But I don't see why Clojure and Common Lisp has to be mutual exclusive.
>
> How many good JavaS do you have? How many PythonS, HaskellS, RubyS ?
I can't keep track of all the Java VM, Python and Ruby.
Google has its own Java VM derivative. IBM has one. Oracle has one.
SAP has one.
Pypy, Cython,..., Ruby, JRuby, Rubinius, IronRuby, Maglev, ...
> At least some of those "trolls" (myself for example) have contributed
> $$$ to Clojure in a way that no other CL has ever enthused them (me)
> to do.
Non-trolls have contributed to Common Lisp more than any number
of trolls will ever contribute to anything.
...
> All those guys pissed off by the closed mind set of CLers, who
> understand Lisp (as opposed to CL or Scheme), and had been wishing,
> for years, that some dictator would emerge and take the lead.
I was always hoping that they get a constant stream of
new toys to keep them busy. Clojure will survive you
guys.
>
> For a time I (we) thought that would be Paul Graham and Arc. But
> after much disapointment, completely out of the blue, Rich Hickey
> popped up from the void with his brilliant synthesis of old and
> new ideas, moving us towards parrallelism in a way no other language
> has yet.
Rich Hickey did not came completely out of the blue.
Rich has been working with Lisp for a long time.
LispWorks users for example now him for some libraries
he wrote. JFLI (2004) for example and FOIL (2005).
Rich has lots of experience and he has already
tried a few approaches.
...
> After years of sttutering in Lisp, I finally find myself able to speak!
> *that* is liberation that no other Lisp ever came close to allow me to.
I think that's great for you. Enjoy it.
> And I guess that is the reason that a lot of people like me who had had
> lust for Lips for years, but couldn't even think of any practical
> application in their everyday work, are suddenly re-awakening to Lisp,
> and finally reaping the benefits that only had been pipe dreams in their
> eyes all along.
>
> That is Huge.
We'll see what you write with Clojure. That's what counts.
Thomas F. Burdick
> > Elena <egarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> No, it wouldn't work. Rich Hickey has built a community around
> >> Clojure. No such community exists around any CL implementation.
>
> > Communities in the CL world exist and work.
>
> > SBCL for example has not one main implementor.
> > Still it has a community.
>
> > Just Monday and Tuesday was the SBCL10 workshop in London:
> >http://sbcl10.sbcl.org/
>
> Yes, I was there. Elena's assertion seems quite bizarre to me
>
> [ snip other stuff I agree with ]
And it was a very good time, with lots of optimistic, forward-looking
discussions and a good amount of hacking.
Francisco Vides Fernández
> On 2009-12-17 17:32:56 +0000, avi <ant...@googlemail.com> said:
>
> [...]
>> Many of you will have noticed the call for funding Rich Hickey made
>> over at the Clojure group a few days ago.
> [...]
>> As a Lisp newbie, I would like such central incentive infrastructure
>> also to exist for the free software community of Common Lisp.
>
> This is just not going to happen.
>
> Rich Hickey has a story. And a vision. He doesn't
> disagree with himself as the single Clojure outside
> voice.
And Thou will believe in His Word, because He is blessed by the Holy Spirit
of Programming, and this is all Good and Well.
> CLers keep moaning, without vision but only envy and
> disdain, lust for a glorious past forever dead.
Well, I've been lurking here for some time, and didn't hear any moan.
Instead, constantly hear people helping others, and writing clever stuff from
which one can try to learn. But I'll keep an eye open, and tell you if I
hear some moanin' to make you happy.
> Clojure challenges the status quo (state vs identity
> vs value) CL *is* the status quo.
Well, I thought Java *is* the status quo. In this small corner of the
programming world there isn't people enough to make a status quo.
> Clojure offers hope, and motivates towards new frontiers
We are talking about programming, are we? You take a good editor, clicketty-
click, and try to not break thinks too much. Space exploring is another
completely different subject.
> (working, scalable parallelism) shunning OO and mutable
> state,
You forgot to mention time traveling, cold fusion, life after death and New
Bread'n'butter. Just to mention some.
> while CL keeps grinding the same old axes (aspects? closer to mop? cells?)
How many new programming paradigms did you incorpore into Clojure this
morning, before breakfast?
> People remember Lisp, the 7 primitives, code is data is code,
> the ying-yang "eval/apply of page 13", not the IBM 704 (or whatever
> that was, who cares?) that gave us the ugly car/cdr legacy.
CAR? CDR? I'll take a look into the Hyperspec ... I'm pretty sure I've heard
those words before.
> The IBM 704 is as relevant to McCarthy's Lisp as the JVM is
> relevant to Clojure today: not. Or not much.
Mmmm.. I'm confused here. You people tried to sell me that all wonderful
java libraries were one of the Clojure Big Pluses. AFAIK, JVM must be under
all that thick library cover. Without JVM and Libraries, Clojure is useful
like a naked Scheme. Try to do some Real World programming with it. Good
luck.
> What is relevant is the new directions that Clojure sets for
> us, while, finally, pushing to the forefront the essence of
> Lisp (as above).
We're _still_ talking about a programming language? Aren't we?
> Rich Hickey didn't invent persistent data structure anymore
> than McCarthy did invent Church lamdda calculus.
>
> McCarthy was the catalyst that made code as data and "pure"
> function, legitimising recursion.
>
> Hickey is the catalyst who bridges pure functional (well
> understood) and mutable state (much less well understood)
> in a compelling way.
>
> Clojure brings *questions* to the table. CL only has *answers*[1]
Well, you need some *answers* to Make Working Stuff. Those *questions* you
mention are good for mental self-satisfaction. And you should do that in
private.
> People don't pay (donate) for what they already have.
> People pay for what they want but don't have yet.
> They pay for "dreams", for projections of themselves in
> the future, not for deeds commited in the past and long
> (and best) forgotten.
Hmm.. google dreams projections future...
http://www.astralvoyage.com/projection/timetravel_english.html
http://www.the-auras-expert.com/astral-projection.html
http://www.alien-ufos.com/dream-future-2012-t23951.html
Are we _still_ talking about programming languages?????
> CL is (still!) dead! Long live Clojure!
Why do you bother talking about a dead language. Go do some real stuff in
Clojure and and tell us about the great things you've _done_
> (though it is probably better to be as dead as CL than
> as stillborn as Arc ... did he say willing to increase the
> number of his ennemies :-)
Just to be clear: I'm not a Clojure enemy. I don't know enough of to even
dislike it (fill all my time with Common Lisp, trying to stop being a newbie)
But I'm pissed with all you illuminates showing all of us poor ignorants the
Next Big Thing. I've seen enough Next Big Things. If you don't have
something interesting to say/show, just shut the f*ck up.
BTW, welcome to my killfile.
--
+-----------------
| Francisco Vides Fernández <fvi...@dedaloingenieros.com>
| Director técnico.
| Dédalo Ingenieros http://www.dedaloingenieros.com/
| PGP: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0xB1299C15
+------
Lars Rune Nøstdal
Yes. I'd like to see something like this for SBCL in particular.
Though, what do I know? Perhaps the devs. have their hands full with
work based on funding from e.g. ITA already?
Lars Rune Nøstdal
> On 2009-12-20 12:09:55 +0000, Jochen Schmidt <j...@crispylogics.com> said:
>
> > But I don't see why Clojure and Common Lisp has to be mutual exclusive.
>
> How many good JavaS do you have? How many PythonS, HaskellS, RubyS ?
>
> When the King is dead, let's just welcome the new King.
>
> > Sometimes I get the feeling that all those trolls moaning around on
> > c.l.l (and creating nothing) are now over at clojure.
>
> At least some of those "trolls" (myself for example) have contributed
> $$$ to Clojure in a way that no other CL has ever enthused them (me)
> to do.
>
> > Seriously: Was that really a problem for you in the past? You can
> > implement your own datastructures so easily in CL.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I can even go down to assembly and rewrite
> everything. Maybe I should consider binary too, end just key in
> everything one On/Off switch at a time ...
Meh. So when Clojure is simply "missing" something and/or RH has other
priorities than yours you'll be "jumping ship" then too. Make sure you
make a grand exit+entry; it tends to be you peoples perpetual mode and
location of operation anyway. The "next RH" will surely enjoy that
just as much as the current one.
(.. not that a _lisp_ requires for one to dive down to asm for one to
add new data structures(!) .. heh ..)
Actually, I do pay attention to what RH is saying and doing with
regards to concurrency; it is interesting, but some of you people
don't seem to understand why he went for the JVM and how this is
unrelated to (it being a) Lisp and/or the _interesting_ parts of
Clojure in general.
I also do not think RH enjoys the rattle some of you people are
making. I saw the last one making a later post on the Clojure list
showing he had not actually understood much _at all_ with regards to
what he was talking about, or promoting, or whatever. Nice.
To be honest I think you should just STFU. This is c.l.l.; not the
Clojure list.
verec
> I saw the last one making a later post on the Clojure list
> showing he had not actually understood much _at all_ with regards to
> what he was talking about, or promoting, or whatever. Nice.
If by "the last one" you mean: me, you'd rather come up with
an actual URL pointing to my "later post", otherwise, well,
you already know what *you* are.
--
JFB
Lars Rune Nøstdal
> On 2009-12-20 21:23:11 +0000, Lars Rune Nøstdal <larsnost...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > I saw the last one making a later post on the Clojure list
> > showing he had not actually understood much _at all_ with regards to
> > what he was talking about, or promoting, or whatever. Nice.
>
> If by "the last one" you mean: me, you'd rather come up with
> an actual URL pointing to my "later post",
Yeah, that sentence (for one..) could have been better, but
regardless, if I had meant you; I would _certainly_ have said "you"
and not things like "the last one" and "he".
> otherwise, well, you already know what *you* are.
Hm, an infidel? .. lol