some stuff about the 2002 International Lisp Conference in SF
Dave Bakhash
I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's International
Lisp Conference. But for the people who were unable to make it there
this year, I'd like to say a few things about it, in the hopes that
people will find one another, and good things will result. I don't
intend for people to follow up, or for most people to care to read what
I have to say...but figured that I'd have wanted to get an idea of what
someone else had come back from the conference with, had I not been able
to make it there. This was my first such conference in CL.
There's a lot to say, so first off, I'll start by saying that it was
very well organized. The organizers did an incredible job, keeping it
timely and moving, yet relaxed and comfortable. Franz had several
people working around-the-clock keeping everything running smoothly, as
well as Raymond and the other folks who provided sponsorship and
support.
For me, it was amazing to finally meet people I've been talking to
directly or indirectly for years. Brigitte Bovy of Xanalys was
especially nice to meet in person, after years of knowing each other
over the phone.
There were some incredible speakers. I particularly enjoyed hearing
what RMS had to say, and despite not preparing anything for the talk, he
told an amazing story, shared a lot of insight, and did so with a warm
sincerity.
I spoke to RMS briefly about using CL instead of Guile (Scheme) as the
next extension language for GNU Emacs, and all he really had to say
about it was that it was "too big". On that note, I'll mention ECL...
ECL was presented by a really cool Spanish guy, a physicist now living
in Germany named Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll (excuse me if I got the
spelling wrong). He presented ECL, a continuation of KCL, which is an
incredible project which has nearly a full ANSI CL working as a library
(about a meg), that you can call from C, and which compiles CL->C, and
readable C at that. It also provides a nice C calling interface to CL
functions, and gives you a fully-functional prompt with a REPL. This
work has already been ported across many Unixes (including Mac OS X) and
Win32 via Cygwin. I find this to be an excellent direction for a Lisp
implementation, especially as most of CL can be done with portable ANSI
C, and then leverage modern C compilers. Benchmarks supposedly put
compiled ECL code ahead of CLISP, making it a better bet. For those
interested, it's LGPL'd, and you should check it out. I'm looking into
putting some money together to fund a effort for ECL in GNU Emacs in
place of Guile as a better (and much more efficient) alternative.
Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. I've read most of his
books, like many people here, and have a deep respect for him. He's at
google now, and discussed some of the real-world problems that Google
faces in their line of work. I shared his feelings that Common Lisp,
though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
not found in other languages have been adopted, gradually, making other
languages good (and often better) alternatives for certain applications.
I also got to talk to the guy who mostly wrote and maintains Open MCL,
Gary Byers, who was one of the nicest, most patient, and knowledgeable
Lisp guys I've ever met. Open MCL is another great Lisp, the engine
behind Digitool's MCL. He was extremely low-key, despite the swarm of
people with Macs that use and rave about MCL. I have never seen so many
Macs before (except product placement of Macs on TV and in movies). I
felt like one of a minority of people with a non-Mac laptop. In any
case, Open MCL has been ported to Linux (PPC), and is free, while
Digitool's MCL is coming soon to OS X, and if you buy it now, you get
the beta now for about $500 and then the stable addition when it comes
out (saving about $200 from buying it when it comes out, which IIRC will
happen around January...correct me if I'm wrong). Franz also passed out
their ACL 6.2 trial edition, which includes ACL for OS X. So now Mac OS
X is in the race with CL, with ECL, (Open) MCL, ACL, and others (CLISP,
etc.) I was also told that there's a working version of CLX on (Open)
MCL on OS X, which (along with XDarwin) allows a lot of graphical
CL-based programs work on the Mac (though they probably already did with
CLISP).
Roger Corman, author and maintainer of Corman Lisp for Win32, was also
there, and gave a great talk on multiprocessing in CL, and how it should
be implemented. I enjoyed the talk a lot, not to mention meeting in
person.
Even though we lived close by for many years, I never met Kent Pitman
until this past week. He's someone who shares many of the same concerns
as I do, but who's thought a lot more about them. Needless to say, you
learn a lot when you talk to him.
I am a big fan of the sdf public access UNIX system, and had the
pleasure of meeting Stephen Jones, who made this project happen. He is
simply the best deal in town with respect to hosting, accounts, speed,
bandwidth, and just about anything and everything you'd ever want from
someone hosting. He's also a Lisper, though not using CL (AFAIK) in his
day job at Marconi. Stephen was really cool to meet -- someone who has
really made things happen, single-handedly, and who is now profitable
with sdf. I would *strongly* suggest using and donating to
Stephen is looking into providing Open Genera to sdf users, since he has
a license, and since he hosts with Alphas. I would suggest that for
people who want an email account for life, to have it at sdf. I don't
just mean the address...but the account. I'll be moving mine over soon
(thanks, Stephen).
On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
Symbolics. From several people who have used Open Genera, it seems like
the ideal Lisp environment. I don't know if it's for me, but if it goes
up on sdf, I'm there. For those who don't know, Open General supports
X, and so it pops up an X window on the Alpha into a emulated Lisp
machine (at least, this is my understanding, as someone who's never used
it). As far as you know, you're really on a Lisp machine...and don't
worry that it's an emulated environment -- it's supposedly faster than
ACL on the Alpha for several benchmarks.
The guy who told me about Open Genera, who also told me about tons of
other stuff, is Carl Shapiro, who's very young, but don't let this guy's
age fool you. He knows tons about every Lisp I've ever heard of, and
has used most quite a bit (ACL, LispWorks, Lucid (LCL), Genera, ...) and
whose work overlapped a bit with mine. He also has many Lisp machines
(20+) and is just a fun guy to ask questions to, since he knows so
much.
There were many talks...so many that I couldn't do justice. But I'll
mention some things that I was interested in.
First off, there was an incredible talk about a way to do constraint
logic programming with CL (called ConS/Lisp). It was presented by
Matthias Holzl, who designed a system, influenced by Screamer (Siskind),
in which many search-based CLP problems are fun and efficient to code.
He made intuitive and effective use of CLOS, and shows you how you can
define a langauge to decouple of the problem from strategies to solve
it. His paper should be coming soon, and I hope to read it.
I went to Duane Rettig's tutorial on simple streams, and it helped me to
see how they worked, though it didn't attempt so much to explain why a
redesign of streams was necessary, and why Grey streams was a failure
(other than saying that simple streams were much faster). However,
there wasn't much time, and all that is well documented in the simple
streams documentation available on Franz's site.
A couple of the guys from Digitool/HotDispatch were there, and spoke
quite elaborately on the HotDispatch success story. I think it's
amazing, because these guys built a really complete,
transactionally-intensive website almost 100% in CL. The HotDispatch
site is amazing, and I've been using it for years now for getting help
with simple jobs. It surprised me to see just how much of their system
was done in CL. They develop under MCL and deliver with LW. They have
their own webserver (in CL), some sort of O/R mapper, tons of services,
asynchronous notifications, a sophisticated caching layer, and
more...and it's all done in CL. An interesting story they told was that
after securing VC, they were instructed to port their system from CL to
Java, which was unusually difficult, and which made showed relative
productivity levels of a factor of 10 to 15 in favor of CL (of course,
YMMV if you try this in your company, but I'm not surprised). At the
same time, I'm working part-time on a site in the J2EE framework using
Jython primarily, and it's coming along faster than I would have
imagined (I guess reiterating Norvig's point that CL's got some stiff
competition -- at least for that sort of work). Oddly, my dream idea is
very closely related, in theory, to what the HotDispatch guys did, and
so I was naturally very interested, and glad to see their success. I
strongly recommend that people create profiles on HotDispatch if they're
looking for work (including work you can do from home, etc.)
On that note (of Lisp success stories) was ITA Software (used by
Orbitz). There was an interesting discussion of how their software
worked by one of the guys there. He discussed a bit of how they used
CL, though not exclusively CL, and how paramount speed was to their
system. The conclusion of that talk did include Lisp playing a key role
in their ongoing success, and ability to cope with the changing
environment, and with the complexity of their problem.
If you like CL, but your thing is more signals processing (forcing you
to use Matlab or something like it instead), then you might want to know
about an extremely multi-talented guy named John Amuedo, who's got a
crazy signals processing and graphics (plotting) environment in MCL. He
does all sorts of stuff with music, and has a rich background in AI.
I was glad to see that several works related and somehow overlapped with
my ongoing work in statistical pattern recognition. Jans Aasman's
recommendation engine, as well as several others made some use of
pattern recognition.
dave
Henrik Motakef
> I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's International
> Lisp Conference. But for the people who were unable to make it there
> this year, I'd like to say a few things about it, in the hopes that
> people will find one another, and good things will result.
Thanks for your summary.
Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
Regards
Henrik
Dave Bakhash
> Thanks for your summary.
sure thing. I guess I left out that there were some opportunities for
CL programmers. I didn't get such a good look, but they were posted.
I'm sure they'll be posted here soon.
> Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
> some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
> anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
> pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
As I said, there should be some proceedings within the next few months.
If you go to http://www.international-lisp-conference.org and click on
speakers pages, you should be able to link to the abstracts of at least
some of the talks. If there's something you're interested in, then you
can probably contact the author directly, or (if you have trouble) post
that you're interested, and someone will get you the information you're
looking for.
Also, I did notice that Ray was taping some of the talks (including the
keynote speakers) so that might become available.
dave
Fred Gilham
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's
> International Lisp Conference.
Same here --- I'm skipping the wine-tasting tour in favor of work and
a home-life.... :-(
I went to the 1999 Lisp conference and gave a paper there. I thought
that one was good. This one was better, both qualitatively and
quantitatively. There were four solid days of presentations, with two
tracks in the morning on three of the days. There was one day of
tutorials with two tracks.
Some comments.
I agree with Dave regarding the organization, and particularly the
role Franz played. I personally found it transparent --- I just did
conference. I didn't have to think about anything else except which
presentations I wanted to hear. It was also fun. I probably
shouldn't say this, but the two registration helpers from Franz were
more of an attraction than some of the talks. :-)
The tutorials were a little disappointing --- the Advanced Lisp
tutorial in particular was too advanced for beginners (a beginner was
sitting right next to me and left about half way through it) and too
elementary for experienced lisp programmers. I ended up wishing I had
gone to Duane's talk on simple streams. Kent's tutorial was
interesting but not focused.
I found that many talks were sort of paired off with anti-talks (not
intentionally I'm sure). For example, Richard Stallman talked about
free software, and Kent Pitman talked about why he was not sure free
software was the right thing. Both talks were interesting and both
had points to argue with. Also, Roger Corman's excellent talk was
about how to implement OS-level threads with preemption, and it was
followed by another talk, also excellent, by Manuel Serrano, the
author of Bigloo, about why OS-level threads with preemption were a
bad idea. His code was in scheme, and I ended up calling his idea for
threads `hygenic threads' though I don't know if anyone would agree
with me on that. It did seem to be the intent, though: impose certain
disciplines on your threading mechanisms to avoid the nasty dark
corners.
One theme of the conference that I didn't necessarily like was what I
called `flying under the radar'. There was a sort of spectrum of
versions of this idea.
One talk, which I thought was going to be very different, was about
what the presenter called `ubiquitous Lisp'. Unfortunately his idea
was something like the following: Lisp is really just closures,
Javascript has closures, Javascript is everywhere, let's call
Javascript "Lisp" and declare victory. Perhaps coincidentally, the
speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
Another talk was called `sharpening the parentheses', and the idea was
to make Lisp into XML, then have a plugin that interpreted the
Lisp-XML in the browser. This, at least, was recognizably Lispy.
Most people were more positive about things. The slogan for these
people was "On the web nobody knows you're written in Lisp." True,
but what happened to "If you've got it, flaunt it." But I agree that
at least in these situations you can work in Lisp.
Peter Norvig, I think, has pretty much jumped ship. He's good to
listen to as someone who has gone through it, but he really isn't
pushing Lisp any more. One point he made was that at Google they
don't really need a Lisp toplevel or on-the-fly patching, because
they've got a highly redundant server farm with 10000 servers. When
they need to upgrade, they take the servers down one at a time and
upgrade them. When a server crashes, they have 9999 more to take up
the slack. What I took from his comments about this was that you
could choose between using Lisp or getting 10000 servers. :-)
Over and over again people at the conference said that they couldn't
do what they were doing without Lisp. I was glad to hear this. But
they'd also say that they either didn't emphasize Lisp or had trouble
even when successful with people complaining about their use of Lisp.
There were a few talks that I thought were incredibly good or
incredibly interesting for some reason that I want to focus on here.
An example of this was Doug Lenat speaking about Cyc. I've heard of
Lenat for years but never heard him speak. He is lucid and
entertaining as a speaker. He has devoted 20 or so years to something
that couldn't be done (according to many), namely building a huge
common-sense database that machines can use to reason about the world,
and is making a commercial success. He's hiring Lisp people ---
though the qualifications are that you have to `dream in Lisp'.
That's not so bad, but you also have to live in Texas. Oh well. Some
people reminded me that the unit of bogosity is the `micro-lenat' but
it did seem like he was accomplishing something pretty amazing.
Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
preface my comments by saying that I enjoyed his talk hugely and found
it fascinating.
He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
Objective-C object model. Having alienated most of his audience to an
extent that was audible, he then went on to speak about the origins of
life, and particularly the idea that some parts of the genetic code
are `precisely universally conserved', that is, everything alive on
the earth has these particular codes for particular proteins. The
point is that if a mutation occurs in this area, the organism isn't
viable. He used this as an argument for intelligent design. Not what
I expected at a Lisp conference, but certainly interesting. Something
I learned is that ribosomes are interpreters of the genetic code ---
they take messenger RNA and interpret it to produce the proteins it
codes for.
The conference ended with a talk by Harold Cohen, who is the author of
AARON, which is a program that he has been writing for 30 years to
create art. I think it was a bit unfortunate that he gave his talk at
the end, since only the `survivors' got to hear it. He talked about
how he had been writing this program for a long time, starting with
Fortran and then C, and had wound up in Lisp and CLOS when he needed
to get the program to work with color. The guy is a kind of genius.
He has written his program, which he says is 2mb of Lisp code, and
he's also built machines to render the paintings. He's also a painter
in his own right. He is an excellent speaker even though he's quite
old. He was obviously giving a prepared talk, but he was describing
something that was basically his life work and it showed. One amusing
aspect of his experience with the interface between technology and art
was the tendency for people to focus on the mechanisms he built to
render the art rather than the art itself. Early on he had a `turtle'
drawing machine and he had to stop using it and go to a flat-bed
plotter because people liked looking at the turtle too much. He also
had a painting machine and he said that people went bananas when the
machine started washing its brushes and paint cups when it was done.
As is always the case, one of the best things about the conference was
meeting fellow Lispers in the flesh. I got to spend a fair amount of
time talking with Rob Warnock, and I met J. P. Massar, both of whom
are (I think) pretty incredible talents.
I also met Marco Antoniotti, who in his spare time from posting to CLL
and doing other net-related stuff is actually doing world-class
bioinformatics. He's another guy that seems to be something of a
genius.
Tim Moore gave a good presentation of CLIM and McCLIM as well as
allowing me to corner him and pump him about CMUCL multiprocessing.
Daniel Barlow talked about CLiki. One problem with this conference is
that I can see that all my spare time for the next month or so is
going to be soaked up looking into all the stuff I heard people talk
about, such as CLiki.
Robert Strandh talked about GSharp, a new, usable version of which is
supposed to be coming out around Christmas. I know what I want in my
stocking! :-) GSharp is something like the TeX of music formatting,
and it's written using McCLIM.
Apart from that I met several people who were just curious about Lisp,
including a few who paid their own way to the conference just to find
out about it.
Numerous people asked me about Garnet. :-) I even brought it to show
people on my laptop. One old-time Lisper was surprised to see that it
still existed. It was fun to be recognized for something I'd done.
The conference will be held again next year, probably the second or
third week of October, in New York. I am planning on going again and
I hope to have a tutorial or presentation to give.
--
Fred Gilham gil...@csl.sri.com || His word is a creative word, and
when he speaks the good exists as good. God is neither arbitrary nor
tyrannical. He is love, and when he expresses his will it is a will
of love. Hence the good given by God is good for us.-- Jacques Ellul
Pratibha
>
> On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
> Symbolics. From several people who have used Open Genera, it seems like
> the ideal Lisp environment. I don't know if it's for me, but if it goes
> X, and so it pops up an X window on the Alpha into a emulated Lisp
> machine (at least, this is my understanding, as someone who's never used
> it). As far as you know, you're really on a Lisp machine...and don't
> worry that it's an emulated environment -- it's supposedly faster than
> ACL on the Alpha for several benchmarks.
I assume the way this would work is to run opengenera on the hosting
Alpha with display to one's X server over the Internet? One would
need to somehow configure one's Internet connection to allow incoming
requests from an sdf X client (the hosting Alpha)? Or maybe
start a vncserver on the hosting Alpha and run a vncviewer on one's
machine to view the vncserver over the Internet? I wonder what the
interactive performance of either of these options would be,
assuming that this is the intended usage mode...
Also, the environment would be Symbolics Common Lisp/Flavors/Zmacs,
not ANSI-CL/CLOS/emacs, right?
Kenny Tilton
Dave Bakhash wrote:
<a nice summary, including...>
> There's a lot to say, so first off, I'll start by saying that it was
> very well organized.
Hear! Hear! This was a serious "contrib" to CL.
> For me, it was amazing to finally meet people I've been talking to
> directly or indirectly for years.
Including John McCarthy in a cameo role!!
>
> Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. ... I shared his feelings that Common Lisp,
> though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
> longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
> not found in other languages have been adopted...
That bit bothered me. PN listed 8 cool features of CL and said of those
6 had been replicated by /some/ language. But!! No /one/ new language
has more than a few. Break it down by new language. All of a sudden we
discover that, just to get to the 80% point of "replicating" CL you need
to drag in four languages, each one contributing at most 30% of CL. (All
preceding numbers fabricated but close enough for government work.)
I would further whine that the check list did not include little things
like "fast" or "standardized". Granted, CL did not invent speed, but
none of the so-called Lisp competitors were fast, and that is one of the
huge objections to them. Not on Norvig's list.
btw, McCarthy nailed Norvig on another missing item from the list, viz,
code as data.
All in all a shabby presentation. Is Python fast? Does it have code as
data? Decent (not ref counting) GC? Macros? chya.
> Digitool's MCL is coming soon to OS X
woo-hoo!
> Even though we lived close by for many years, I never met Kent Pitman
> until this past week.
Kent was great, but I just don't get his anti-free thing. Jim Croce said
it: you don't spit into the wind. And his example of his http server
being made unmarketable by AllegroServe... well, there is also cl-http.
Not that that is "free", but it certainly seems like it might be a
commodity in that it is easy to produce. Potential investors demand of
our little startup: can't someone else replicate your work, eliminating
your competitive advantage? They are not saying the replicators will
give their work away, they just don't want us to be delivering a
commodity which anyone (esp. a groilla like Oracle) can churn out. They
want to hear that what we did is hard or patented (fwiw).
>
> There were many talks...so many that I couldn't do justice. But I'll
> mention some things that I was interested in.
[all good ones]
I got a big kick out of LinJ, the Lisp-to-Java source translator. I have
visions of porting Cells to Java via LinJ, which IIRC they said they
would share.
Interesting double-standard: Gabriel denounced OO unchallenged,
but Greenblatt was actually hissed (me included!) for dissing multiple
inheritance.
Back to Gabriel, I was fascinated to learn how hard it was to get a
degree in poetry, which boiled down to writing and reading a ton.
gabriel bemoaned how little we ask of comp sci grads, but it occurred to
me that since we do not yet know how to program (hey, biggies like
Gabriel, Greenblatt, and Graham are wrong about OO) we might be excused
for not yet knowing how to teach it.
Wake-up call: Imran Shah (I believe it was) of U of Colorado, Boulder
ended a nice talk by saying one of the only things wrong with CL was
that you cannot find CLers. We did a sanity check and discovered he had
advertised only locally. No posting on the Franz site, nothing here on
c.l.l., I imagine nothing on monster or dice or hotjobs... Shah was
thrilled to learn that he had just been looking in the wrong place, and
I think we need to think about how we can prevent this int he future.
which brings me to the ALU, which is getting ready to step things up,
and maybe one thing they (we!) can do is host a members-only job hunting
area on the soon-to-be reinvigorated web site, and make the hell sure
people know about it.
btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next year)
in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll make it
anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New Yawk, New
Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
more as i think of it, but all in all it was an astonishing event. ray,
the alu and franz deserve (and got) a lot of credit. the coordination
and content were simply over the top excellent. me, i was there just to
see the great roster of lispers, but in the end the best part for me was
rubbing elbows at last with other trench-diggers such as myself.
now i gotta get to work on browsing the half-dozen or more cool sites I
learned about this week.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
Elwood P. Dowd
Abhijit Rao
wrote:
>Dave Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> I just got back home, missing the last day of this year's International
>> Lisp Conference. But for the people who were unable to make it there
>> this year, I'd like to say a few things about it, in the hopes that
>> people will find one another, and good things will result.
>
>Thanks for your summary.
Thanks! Yessir!
>Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
>some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
>anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
>pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
aye aye !! Please some photos! I am reeeeeealy curious to /see/ all
these people.
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley
Marc Spitzer
news:3DC35AB2...@nyc.rr.com:
> btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next
> year) in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll
> make it anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New
> Yawk, New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case trying
to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and looking into
starting a users group? I did not see an chapters listed on the website.
marc
Marc Spitzer
news:6kp6sucum8k1k87di...@4ax.com:
Do not forget the sign in helpers. ;->
marc
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
| > ...New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
|
| Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
Speaking of hotels: this just in from the RISKS Digest:
<URL:http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.33.html#subj6.1>
...
If you stayed at a Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, or Crowne
Plaza hotel and checked out between 24 Oct and 26 Oct 2002,
you are likely to have been one of 26,000 people who were
charged 100 times what they owed, such as $6,500 to $21,000
per night. A credit-processing error resulted in the decimal
points being dropped. Most of the charges were later reversed,
although many people discovered that their credit limits had
been exhausted. Overcharged guests will get two free nights
at any of those hotels.
Any attendees who stayed in the conference hotel [a Holiday Inn],
left early [between 10/24 & 10/26], and didn't yet look at their
bill should check your hotel bill carefully... :-(
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Arthur Lemmens
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> now i gotta get to work on browsing the half-dozen or more cool sites I
> learned about this week.
Can you give us some URL's?
Thanks.
Arthur Lemmens
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
|
| Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
Speaking of hotels, this just in from the RISKS Digest:
<URL:http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.33.html#subj6.1>
...
If you stayed at a Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, or Crowne
Plaza hotel and checked out between 24 Oct and 26 Oct 2002,
you are likely to have been one of 26,000 people who were
charged 100 times what they owed, such as $6,500 to $21,000
per night. A credit-processing error resulted in the decimal
points being dropped. Most of the charges were later reversed,
although many people discovered that their credit limits had
been exhausted. Overcharged guests will get two free nights
at any of those hotels.
The conference hotel was a Holiday Inn, but given that ILC started on
the 27th, looks like we just missed getting bitten by this one... ;-}
Abhijit Rao
wrote:
>btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next year)
>in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll make it
>anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New Yawk, New
>Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
Unashamedly extending that invitation to meself, I have to make
preparations to start immediately in order to reach Nook Yawk in time.
But I am prepared to stay in a tent on your lawn/terrace if you
promise to extend a cat5 cable to it.
Paolo Amoroso
wrote:
> Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
> some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
A couple of papers are already available:
A Free Implementation of CLIM
http://www.bricoworks.com/~moore/clim-paper.pdf
CLiki: collaborative content management for community web sites
http://ww.telent.net/ilc-slides/paper.tar
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Kenny Tilton
Yep, I am thinking we call ourselves the International Lisp Users Group,
New York chapter. ILUG-NY (pronounced to the tune of "I Love NY", the
tourism promotion jingle.)
The format should be a big table with pitchers of beer in the middle.
McSorley's?
kenny
clinisys
Dave Bakhash
> > btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next
> > year) in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll
> > make it anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New
> > Yawk, New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
>
> Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
>
> Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case trying
> to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and looking into
> starting a users group? I did not see an chapters listed on the website.
I'm all for this. I'll call an open meeting, and will reserve a
conference room available for it right in midtown manhattan, 5 minutes
from Penn Station. This first one in NYC should just be to bring the
people together, such that we can get to know each other, and what
we're all doing, and possibly if we can help each other.
I know for sure that there are several Lispers in Long Island
(including Carl Shapiro). There's also Marco, Kenny, and of course
Raymond in the city proper. People can bring their laptops if they
want, and demo stuff. I'll be able to demo lots of stuff, will fire
up a transaction system, show POS interfacing stuff, IVR, and some of
my pet projects (e.g. XStrokes).
What I might do as well is to let some people know at NYU, so students
there who might know a little about CL, but don't have course
offerings can come too. We can start organizing some volutary
instructional sessions, etc. I tought a course in CL at BU,
voluntarily (the CS department donated a room to me for a couple of
hours once a week), and it was successful with over 20 students,
starting with about 30.
It's fascinating to ask students to bring their problem sets to class,
and show them how what they regularly spend 6 hours on in C or C++
usually takes no more than 15-30 minutes in CL. I used to do that,
but then stopped, because I would rather teach CL in its own right
than comparitively. I know that at least two of those people
continued to use CL afterwards, and fired up ACL regularly thereafter.
I'll try to gather a mailing list of interested people. In the
meantime, people can let me know what their schedules look like. Feel
free to send me email.
dave
Dave Bakhash
> > Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case
> > trying to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and
> > looking into starting a users group?
>
> Yep, I am thinking we call ourselves the International Lisp Users
> Group, New York chapter. ILUG-NY (pronounced to the tune of "I Love
> NY", the tourism promotion jingle.)
I'm all for it. I love the name ILUG, and ILUG-NY is perfect, though a
quick check shows that we won't get the name ilug.org. I posted already
that I will reserve a conference room in midtown, 5 min. from Penn
Station, and all are invited.
> The format should be a big table with pitchers of beer in the
> middle. McSorley's?
I guess Java would be better (i.e. "IJUG" [of beer].)
I would like to round up as many of the NYC metro Lispers, Long
Islanders, etc. I only know of a few, though: Kenny, Carl, Ray, Marc,
Marco...I know I'm missing some for sure.
I'll write up a formal posting about it.
dave
Kenny Tilton
>
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>now i gotta get to work on browsing the half-dozen or more cool sites I
>>learned about this week.
>
>
> Can you give us some URL's?
Good idea. (btw, if later the ALU ends up sharing the conference
proceedings, everyone should dive into that so they also find the stuff
which happened not to light my personal fire.)
caveat: this will be a little embarrassing for me since I will be saying
stuff like "OK, one cool thing I discovered was this place called
Google"... well, not /that/ bad, but close enough. I kinda live in this
extremely isolated techno-niche (and am only now thinking about checking
slashdot each day) so I have some wicked blind spots.
The last (speaker) shall be first: I did not know the painting program
Aaron was available as shareware:
http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/KCATaaron/DOWNLOADbasic
Harold Cohen, the author, gave a nice talk to end the conference.
Also, I can't say I had not seen this place before, but it was nice to
get reminded of:
http://www.hotdispatch.com/home.html
I am thinking about at long last kicking off a project to produce a
portable gui (X, Win32 and Mac) and HotDispatch might be a neat way to
get help with the effort if I do not want to go the open route.
More to come.
Kenny Tilton
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:49:08 GMT, Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> y'all can stay at my place.
>
> promise to extend a cat5 cable to it.
"We have a pool and a pond. The pond would be good for you."
-- Chevy Chase to Bill Murray, Caddy Shack
:)
the tent might work. Central Park is nearby, and if you set up in
Strawberry Field you would /not/ be the only one there overnight.
seriously, I have here a copy of "Sleep Cheap in NY", but when I offered
it to a visitor he said he could find all that on-line. But one
recommended site picked at random:
http://www.centralparkhostel.com/
Abhijit Rao
wrote:
>"We have a pool and a pond. The pond would be good for you."
>-- Chevy Chase to Bill Murray, Caddy Shack
It will be a new an enriching experience, I am sure - this pond.
>
>:)
>
>the tent might work. Central Park is nearby, and if you set up in
>Strawberry Field you would /not/ be the only one there overnight.
What a nice (polite :very) way of going about it. :) you need not have
worried though - it will take me years before I reach Noo York (if I
get there at all). They tell me I will have to cross several oceans
to get there - not to mention unnamed dangers in the desert lands that
lie in between. But no fear! I have my trusty Victorinox by my side
- we both shall face the dangers together and unflinchingly!
>seriously, I have here a copy of "Sleep Cheap in NY", but when I offered
>it to a visitor he said he could find all that on-line. But one
>recommended site picked at random:
>
> http://www.centralparkhostel.com/
Your kindness has inspired me to extend an open invitation to all
lispers who may be passing through my city - it is the least I can do.
Onwards to Utopia!
Kenny Tilton
Abhijit Rao wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:07:09 GMT, Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"We have a pool and a pond. The pond would be good for you."
>>-- Chevy Chase to Bill Murray, Caddy Shack
>
>
> It will be a new an enriching experience, I am sure - this pond.
No chlorine, for sure. You know, W and I visited Alcatraz on Tutorial
Day, and I have an idea.
Alcatraz was meant for the criminals other prisons did not want. Maybe I
should offer my roof just to those who have been keel-hauled on c.l.l.,
such as Quasi, Ilias, JB, and Mel. Maybe a lifetime achievement spot for
Xah, as well. We could run an anti-conference on my front stoop...
Hmmmm....
JB
> Alcatraz was meant for the criminals other prisons did not
> want. Maybe I should offer my roof just to those who have
> been keel-hauled on c.l.l., such as Quasi, Ilias, JB, and
> Mel. Maybe a lifetime achievement spot for Xah, as well.
> We could run an anti-conference on my front stoop...
I have been treated well here. I do not know what you mean.
--
JB
Kenny Tilton
OK, I'll see if I can get IRT instead.
Actually, everyone in the list has been well-treated here. The
"keel-haul" analogy was selected after several milliseconds of careful
thought.
Bill Clementson
> On 31 Oct 2002 22:55:34 +0100, Henrik Motakef <henrik....@web.de>
> wrote:
> >Scince a lot of the topics seem to be very interesting, I wonder if
> >some of them will be made available on the conference web site, or
> >anywhere else. Of course, if someone remebered the photo/divx idea,
> >pointers would be appreciated, too :-)
>
> aye aye !! Please some photos! I am reeeeeealy curious to /see/ all
> these people.
Some pictures that I took are at:
http://lisp.home.attbi.com/ilc_2002.htm
I believe that ALU will be making available videos & a CD at a later
date.
--
Bill Clementson
Jim White
> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>Yep, I am thinking we call ourselves the International Lisp Users
>>Group, New York chapter. ILUG-NY (pronounced to the tune of "I Love
>>NY", the tourism promotion jingle.)
>
> I'm all for it. I love the name ILUG, and ILUG-NY is perfect, though a
> quick check shows that we won't get the name ilug.org. I posted already
> that I will reserve a conference room in midtown, 5 min. from Penn
> Station, and all are invited.
Well, thanks to Mr. Newman, we've got a whole song for ILUG-LA! ;-)
Jim
Will Deakin
> Well, thanks to Mr. Newman, we've got a whole song for ILUG-LA! ;-)
I presume this is Randy rather than, say, Cardinal...
;)w
Vlad S.
> On that note I learned some history about Symbolics, and what is now
> Symbolics.
Pray tell, what did David Schmidt say about the status of Symbolics?
Abhijit Rao
wrote:
>Alcatraz was meant for the criminals other prisons did not want. Maybe I
>should offer my roof just to those who have been keel-hauled on c.l.l.,
>such as Quasi, Ilias, JB, and Mel.
I was not aware I was part of any such prestigious group. I sincerely
thank you for opening my eyes to membership. It is such pleasure to
see that one's light hearted attempts at humours also can actually
land him into the esoteric league. I must be lucky or what?
> Maybe a lifetime achievement spot for
>Xah, as well. We could run an anti-conference on my front stoop...
anti-conference? Unfortunately having fought hard to get to do Lisp I
would have to politely decline. But I /do/ get the point.
I would also request one more thing from you (what? another one?? die
of shame you mosquito!). I would be honored by my entry into your
killfile. I would not like you to have to associate with criminals.
Matthew X. Economou
Pratibha> I assume the way this would work is to run opengenera on
Pratibha> the hosting Alpha with display to one's X server over
Pratibha> the Internet? One would need to somehow configure one's
Pratibha> Internet connection to allow incoming requests from an
Pratibha> sdf X client (the hosting Alpha)?
VNC probably isn't a good idea, as it is relantively insecure, not to
mention slow (even compared to X11). I've seen decent performance
using X11 connections forwarded over SSH tunnels, especially with a
fast cipher selected (e.g. Blowfish) and gzip-compression enabled. Of
course, this is over a broadband Internet connection, not dialup.
That said, I'd gladly slog through a slow-ass X11 connection to play
with Genera. I would pay money to support the server on the other
end, too.
--
Matthew X. Economou <xeno...@irtnog.org> - Unsafe at any clock speed!
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian heritage! (http://www.subgenius.com)
Max told his friend that he'd just as soon not go hiking in the hills.
Said he, "I'm an anti-climb Max." [So is that punchline.]
Kenny Tilton
Abhijit Rao wrote:
> I would also request one more thing from you (what? another one?? die
> of shame you mosquito!). I would be honored by my entry into your
> killfile. I would not like you to have to associate with criminals.
That does it, the anti-conference is off. What a prickly, humorless lot!
JB
> OK, I'll see if I can get IRT instead.
>
> Actually, everyone in the list has been well-treated here.
> The "keel-haul" analogy was selected after several
> milliseconds of careful thought.
Hey Kenny!
There are those who are good and those who are evil. Those
who disclose their heretic views are always evil.
It must be good for you to belong to those who are good!
--
JB
"Die töricht genug ihr volles Herz nicht wahrten,
Dem Pöbel ihr Gefühl, ihr Schauen offenbarten,
Hat man von je gekreuzigt und verbrannt."
(Goethe: Faust I)
Abhijit Rao
wrote:
>That does it, the anti-conference is off. What a prickly, humorless lot!
Ha. What a humour. The same when people find it so funny to corner a
junior in the bathroom and say "hey weener you are sooo short - you
cant even kiss and do it at the same time." The same as when people
find it so humorous to go bomb every tom dick & harry. "Fakin evil
people - lets bomb them & see them roast. hahaha."
Unfortunately this sub-thread has skewed away badly. *sigh*
Tim Bradshaw
> VNC probably isn't a good idea, as it is relantively insecure, not to
> mention slow (even compared to X11).
VNC tunnelled over ssh is as secure as ssh. I've used VNC over a 64k
line, and it's basically OK. For many modern X applications it's
actually considerably faster than X, because it only sends stuff which
actually involves a visual change on the screen, unlike X applications
which will happily send 3 billion futile requests to the server before
they do anything at all in the way of making a window appear (trace
netscape or xemacs sometime, and I bet really modern things are much
worse than this).
--tim
Will Deakin
> Ha. What a humour. The same when people find it so funny to corner a
> junior in the bathroom and say "hey weener you are sooo short - you
> cant even kiss and do it at the same time." The same as when people
> find it so humorous to go bomb every tom dick & harry. "Fakin evil
> people - lets bomb them & see them roast. hahaha."
Please could you translate.
> Unfortunately this sub-thread has skewed away badly.
There is a (relatively) popular humourous radio show in this country
called `just a minute' in which a contestant must talk on a subject for
60 seconds without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Other contestant
can challenge on the basis of this. I think the above would probably
fall under the category of `deviation from the english language...'
;)w
Abhijit Rao
<aniso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Abhijit Rao wrote:
>
>> Ha. What a humour. The same when people find it so funny to corner a
>> junior in the bathroom and say "hey weener you are sooo short - you
>> cant even kiss and do it at the same time." The same as when people
>> find it so humorous to go bomb every tom dick & harry. "Fakin evil
>> people - lets bomb them & see them roast. hahaha."
>
>Please could you translate.
Could you please tell me what part you want translated and into which
language? '-) The above is correct English I suppose (except for the
quoted bits which are exempt from grammar). :-)
>> Unfortunately this sub-thread has skewed away badly.
>
>There is a (relatively) popular humourous radio show in this country
>called `just a minute' in which a contestant must talk on a subject for
>60 seconds without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Other contestant
>can challenge on the basis of this. I think the above would probably
>fall under the category of `deviation from the english language...'
I fear I have to admit that I don't see the 'deviation...' bit here.
You may have to be more elaborate if I have to understand. ;) BTW
which country?
>;)w
Paolo Amoroso
wrote:
> A Free Implementation of CLIM
> http://www.bricoworks.com/~moore/clim-paper.pdf
Note that initial support for graph drawing was implemented since the paper
was written.
Dave Bakhash
I didn't hear anything specific about Symbolics, except that what's left
are three people, and that they maintain Open Genera. I have never used
their Lisp, so I know very little about it.
Still, from the way people who actually use Open Genera talk about it,
it seems like the ideal Lisp platform to develop under.
dave
Greg Menke
They're a pretty small operation now, but still have some long-term
customers. Due to contract constraints, their price for Genera is
fixed- pretty much right out of the hobbyist range unfortunately.
They have an emulator that runs on Alpha hardware if you don't have
native hardware handy. They have a good bit of their own hardware on
hand, parts & some facilities to repair them. They try to keep track
of their existing hardware, attempting to keep it out of the
landfills. Software-wise, they bring in previous Symbolics people
from time to time to handle updates & bug fixes, etc- however they are
not in a position for large scale development. Unless you're willing
to pay for it I imagine...
They've been toying with ideas related to either augmenting a
commodity 64 bit processor (PowerPC, Itanic...) to be somewhat close
to "Lisp-ready", or to pick up funding to roll a custom processor.
Personally, I doubt there's much of a market for a custom processor
these days- but what do I know. I think it might be easier to sell a
PCI based coprocessor board with some suitably tweaked Sparc/PowerPC,
all loaded up w/ ram and custom fpga's to make the thing Lispy. Some
of the bio-informatics presentations sure sounded as if something like
that might be handy.
Mr. Schmidt gave a fascinating presentation, I'm glad I made it. He
even had a drawing for one of their boards and a copy of Genera.
Unfortunately I had neither business cards or a handy piece of paper
on which to scratch my name...
Gregm
Reini Urban
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
> [..] They've been toying with ideas related to either augmenting a
> commodity 64 bit processor (PowerPC, Itanic...) to be somewhat close
> to "Lisp-ready", or to pick up funding to roll a custom processor.
> Personally, I doubt there's much of a market for a custom processor
> these days- but what do I know. I think it might be easier to sell
> a PCI based coprocessor board with some suitably tweaked
> Sparc/PowerPC, all loaded up w/ ram and custom fpga's to make the
> thing Lispy. Some of the bio-informatics presentations sure sounded
> as if something like that might be handy.
Is there really still a perceived need for such "lispy" hardware? The
current mass-produced CPUs are amazingly fast, and if there is a 25%
(or even more) overhead of mapping some run-time environment to these
CPUs, that's still 75% of something that's constantly getting faster,
at no effort on "our" part. Other than slightly reduced code-size and
somewhat simpler compilers, what would be the expected gain of such
hardware?
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Greg Menke
I think the theory is to the extent Lispy hardware offers some useful
performance increment, someone will be willing to buy it. Personally,
I doubt that any significant number of people would be particularly
interested in a custom processor, but there might be some interested
in a really fast Lisp coprocessor. I think code size and simpler
compilers don't really enter into it these days. On the other hand,
one of the bio-informatics guys said he'd be glad to buy some kind of
board that would give a reasonable performance boost. I think the key
is the machine instruction level implementation of tag bits and/or
other low level Lisp features that are typically emulated via higher
level abstractions on general purpose hardware. Even if this made a
huge speed improvement, the board would have to be cheap to build
because not too many people would be interested. If Java could be run
better/faster on the board too, it might reach a larger market. The
idea of running full safety code as fast or faster than no safety code
on conventional processors is an appealing argument.
Gregm
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
> The idea of running full safety code as fast or faster than no
> safety code on conventional processors is an appealing argument.
It's certainly appealing, but not very realistic.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Kenny Tilton
I think in the long run (we're talking macro, not micro) what we are
learning is that tag bits are handy, so someday we'll have them, if only
to support Java. That's OK, as long as Lisp compilers can leverage them.
But if I am right, we'll see that only when Intel or Motorola decides
to put them in. I wonder if Motorola is looking for a way to grow share? :)
Raymond Toy
Kenny> Frode Vatvedt Fjeld wrote:
>> Greg Menke <gregm...@toadmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The idea of running full safety code as fast or faster than no
>>> safety code on conventional processors is an appealing argument.
>> It's certainly appealing, but not very realistic.
>>
Kenny> I think in the long run (we're talking macro, not micro) what we are
Kenny> learning is that tag bits are handy, so someday we'll have them, if
Kenny> only to support Java. That's OK, as long as Lisp compilers can
Kenny> leverage them. But if I am right, we'll see that only when Intel or
Kenny> Motorola decides to put them in. I wonder if Motorola is looking for a
Kenny> way to grow share? :)
FWIW, Sparcs have instructions to support tag bits. Two of those
instructions have been deprecated in the Sparc V9. And they didn't
extend the instruction for 64-bit support.
Ray
Michael Hudson
Or William Harold...
Cheers,
M.
--
I'm about to search Google for contract assassins to go to Iomega
and HP's programming groups and kill everyone there with some kind
of electrically charged rusty barbed thing.
-- http://bofhcam.org/journal/journal.html, 2002-01-08
Eric Thorsen
I know in Westchester county using Lisp and would like to do whatever
I can to spread the word. My schedule is fairly open but evenings
Mon-Fri are best.
Thanks,
Eric
ca...@alum.mit.edu (Dave Bakhash) wrote in message news:<8a3667a0.0211...@posting.google.com>...
> Marc Spitzer <mspi...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:
> > > btw, IIRC the ALU voted fer sher to hold the next conference (next
> > > year) in my adopted home town, the Big "if you can make here, you'll
> > > make it anywhere" Apple, the city so great they named it twice, New
> > > Yawk, New Yawk. y'all can stay at my place.
> >
> > Cool, I can pay for the conference and skip the hotel and airfair.
> >
> > Now since there apears to be at least 3 people doing, or in my case trying
> > to do, lisp in NYC area any chance of having a meeting and looking into
> > starting a users group? I did not see an chapters listed on the website.
>
> I'm all for this. I'll call an open meeting, and will reserve a
> conference room available for it right in midtown manhattan, 5 minutes
> from Penn Station. This first one in NYC should just be to bring the
> people together, such that we can get to know each other, and what
> we're all doing, and possibly if we can help each other.
>
> I know for sure that there are several Lispers in Long Island
> (including Carl Shapiro). There's also Marco, Kenny, and of course
> Raymond in the city proper. People can bring their laptops if they
> want, and demo stuff. I'll be able to demo lots of stuff, will fire
> up a transaction system, show POS interfacing stuff, IVR, and some of
> my pet projects (e.g. XStrokes).
>
> What I might do as well is to let some people know at NYU, so students
> there who might know a little about CL, but don't have course
> offerings can come too. We can start organizing some volutary
> instructional sessions, etc. I tought a course in CL at BU,
> voluntarily (the CS department donated a room to me for a couple of
> hours once a week), and it was successful with over 20 students,
> starting with about 30.
>
> It's fascinating to ask students to bring their problem sets to class,
> and show them how what they regularly spend 6 hours on in C or C++
> usually takes no more than 15-30 minutes in CL. I used to do that,
> but then stopped, because I would rather teach CL in its own right
> than comparitively. I know that at least two of those people
> continued to use CL afterwards, and fired up ACL regularly thereafter.
>
> I'll try to gather a mailing list of interested people. In the
> meantime, people can let me know what their schedules look like. Feel
> free to send me email.
>
> dave
Christopher C. Stacy
Roger Corman
>Uh. Roger Corman cut his hair!
Guilty as charged! About a year ago. I updated my photo on the cormanlisp
web site quite back then as well.
I am sorry you weren't at the conference, Chris. Your name came up in a number
of conversations. I know it would have been a very long trip for you.
Roger
vsync
> Most people were more positive about things. The slogan for these
> people was "On the web nobody knows you're written in Lisp." True,
> but what happened to "If you've got it, flaunt it." But I agree that
> at least in these situations you can work in Lisp.
[...]
> Over and over again people at the conference said that they couldn't
> do what they were doing without Lisp. I was glad to hear this. But
> they'd also say that they either didn't emphasize Lisp or had trouble
> even when successful with people complaining about their use of Lisp.
I've had the same problem. I'm currently working on a Lisp-based site
and content management suite thing (can't really come up with a more
concise definition than that ATM) using mod_lisp. (This has curtailed
my Usenet postings for some months now, as I finally realized that
it's far more productive to do nothing but hack Lisp than to do
nothing but talk about Lisp incessantly. I tend to be fairly
obsessive, so for me it's one or the other in the early phases.) My
primary goal is to have something I like for myself to use, but
secondarily I hope to either show it off as part of my portfolio for
jobs requiring knowledge of Lisp-based or similar languages, or to use
the codebase for consulting, charge for support, modifications, etc.
Anyway, I've got it to a point where it works tolerably fast for a
small site, it doesn't break down, and it's admin friendly and stable
enough to start deploying to my test box. I've been showing it to a
friend of mine, and he's been impressed with how it works, how it's
organized, and the cleanliness of the HTML output (we both worked for
a "vertical portal company" which produced the most broken (both in
organization and in syntax) HTML I've ever seen).
There's nothing that I couldn't have done in another language, of
course, (all hail Turing) but Common Lisp has been extremely helpful,
from CLOS's multiple-inheritance and method combination, to the macro
facilities I was able to use to cleanly and easily generate the HTML,
to the condition system and extremely helpful "little things" such as
pathnames. How do I explain this? Most people seem to think that if
it can be done in something besides a Lisp, that it necessarily
_should_ be done in anything besides a Lisp.
My friend knows that I like Lisp, and from some Slashdot postings that
I wrote, complete with code snippets, he's come to understand why I
like it over, say, Java (he already despises C++). He also knows that
I've been writing this primarily so that I can easily create
Web-accessible resources using a language and libraries I enjoy. And
I'm purposefully setting things up so that it will be as easy to
install (or easier) than any other Apache plugin, and that no
knowledge of Lisp, or even that my software is written in Lisp, is
necessary. But it always comes back to the same thing: "Cool! Now
that you've got it fleshed out, how long will it take you to translate
it from the godly metalanguage Lisp [his words] into something more
normal?"
I can never really explain that the need for the concept expressed by
his question isn't really relevant to me, nor that I can't really see
the point in rewriting something that works fine, and that works as
robustly as it does because the environment I used made it acceptable
and easy to write more robust code than seems normal. Then the
conversation always moves to a tiresome discussion of things like
"marketing" and "mass acceptance" and stuff I can't bring myself to
care about.
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/
"If MS could only work this hard to make quality software. But they
never do. If they can't play dirty tricks they get bored and go out in
the corridor to play paint-ball."
-- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43916&cid=4576582
Chris Beggy
> I've had the same problem. I'm currently working on a Lisp-based site
> and content management suite thing (can't really come up with a more
> concise definition than that ATM) using mod_lisp.
That's great!
Craig Brozefsky
> necessary. But it always comes back to the same thing: "Cool! Now
> that you've got it fleshed out, how long will it take you to translate
> it from the godly metalanguage Lisp [his words] into something more
> normal?"
How about, "When its done, and that won't happen for another couple
years, but it would go faster if you helped me write the lisp."
> I can never really explain that the need for the concept expressed by
> his question isn't really relevant to me, nor that I can't really see
> the point in rewriting something that works fine, and that works as
> robustly as it does because the environment I used made it acceptable
> and easy to write more robust code than seems normal. Then the
> conversation always moves to a tiresome discussion of things like
> "marketing" and "mass acceptance" and stuff I can't bring myself to
> care about.
The site configuration and content mgmt market is so full of shite
that I think it's obvious that doing it over in a "more accpetbale"
language is in itself a step backwards, because for any acceptable
language there are an ungodly number of similarly small-time site mgmt
toolkits just like it. How would it compete for users and developers
in such a saturated market? By sticking with lisp you are aiming for
a different level of user and developer which can help your toolkit
advance with the state of the art. If you scrunch it into another
language you are likely to lose the flexibility and ease of
development and experementation that will differentiate your toolkit
from the bajillion others.
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Tim Bradshaw
> The site configuration and content mgmt market is so full of shite
> that I think it's obvious that doing it over in a "more accpetbale"
> language is in itself a step backwards, because for any acceptable
> language there are an ungodly number of similarly small-time site mgmt
> toolkits just like it. How would it compete for users and developers
> in such a saturated market? By sticking with lisp you are aiming for
> a different level of user and developer which can help your toolkit
> advance with the state of the art. If you scrunch it into another
> language you are likely to lose the flexibility and ease of
> development and experementation that will differentiate your toolkit
> from the bajillion others.
This is always the dilemma. In a related area, Sun face the same kind
of issues. The baying hordes are crying for them to convert to Linux
and x86, but if they do that, what do they have to offer? Well-made
and maintained machines? I dunno.
--tim
Heow
random bar here in the East Village! Count me in, and I'll pester the
other guy too.
- Heow
cst...@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote in message news:<uu1iwa...@dtpq.com>...
Paolo Amoroso
> Dave Bakhash wrote:
[...]
> > Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. ... I shared his feelings
> > that Common Lisp,
> > though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
> > longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
> > not found in other languages have been adopted...
>
> That bit bothered me. PN listed 8 cool features of CL and said of those
> 6 had been replicated by /some/ language. But!! No /one/ new language
> has more than a few. Break it down by new language. All of a sudden we
> discover that, just to get to the 80% point of "replicating" CL you need
> to drag in four languages, each one contributing at most 30% of CL. (All
> preceding numbers fabricated but close enough for government work.)
Do you mean that we finally have a mathematical proof of Greenspun's Tenth
Rule?
> Wake-up call: Imran Shah (I believe it was) of U of Colorado, Boulder
> ended a nice talk by saying one of the only things wrong with CL was
> that you cannot find CLers. We did a sanity check and discovered he had
> advertised only locally. No posting on the Franz site, nothing here on
> c.l.l., I imagine nothing on monster or dice or hotjobs... Shah was
Let's not forget the ai+lisp-jobs mailing list.
Mark Dalgarno
Just one thought on this. Five out of the six Lisp programmers I've
recruited in the last three years have come via postings I made on
c.l.l.
However, in a larger organisation recruitment may be handled by a
personnel department which does things in a rigid manner and may not
have the flexibility to advertise on usenet or the wider internet (or
to conduct the follow-up telephone interviews).
Moral - if you're in this position make sure c.l.l is one of the
recruitment channels your personnel department uses - it may also save
your organisation money in agency and advertising fees.
Mark
Dave Bakhash
> There are more out here than I expected as I ran across a Lisper in a
> random bar here in the East Village! Count me in, and I'll pester the
> other guy too.
I'll add you to the list if you want...send me your actual email.
dave
Marc Battyani
"Paolo Amoroso" <amo...@mclink.it> wrote
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:49:08 GMT, Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Bakhash wrote:
> [...]
> > > Anther big speaker (for me) was Peter Norvig. ... I shared his
feelings
> > > that Common Lisp,
> > > though having many advantages over other programming languages, was no
> > > longer alone, and that many of the key features that CL had that were
> > > not found in other languages have been adopted...
> >
> > That bit bothered me. PN listed 8 cool features of CL and said of those
> > 6 had been replicated by /some/ language. But!! No /one/ new language
> > has more than a few. Break it down by new language. All of a sudden we
> > discover that, just to get to the 80% point of "replicating" CL you need
> > to drag in four languages, each one contributing at most 30% of CL. (All
> > preceding numbers fabricated but close enough for government work.)
>
> Do you mean that we finally have a mathematical proof of Greenspun's Tenth
> Rule?
Almost. It's just a money problem. Basically what he said is that it costs
less to spend a lot of development time for really optimizing some parts of
the code when you have more than 10000 servers. A 20% decrease in
performance would result in 2000 servers, with their associated costs, being
added.
That bothered me as well because I don't have 10000 servers but only 3 and I
don't have the 200 talented C/C++ programmers of Google to write the macros
and compiler I get for free with a Common Lisp. So at the break I asked him
if he though his arguments were applicable to small companies or what
language he would use in that case. "No, I would use Lisp" he replied.
Marc
Wade Humeniuk
"Marc Battyani" <Marc.B...@fractalconcept.com> wrote in message
news:279F7DE621B48C70.A0450637...@lp.airnews.net...
> Almost. It's just a money problem. Basically what he said is that it costs
> less to spend a lot of development time for really optimizing some parts of
> the code when you have more than 10000 servers. A 20% decrease in
> performance would result in 2000 servers, with their associated costs, being
> added.
That argument is not quite valid, as machine performance increases, in 18 months
those 10,000 servers may be down to 5,000. Now you have diminishing returns
on that 20%, until they almost diminish to nothing. Maintenence and administrative costs
are probably the largest cost after development, was anything said about that?
That argument has more sway for things like cell phones where many 100,000's of
phones are made and saving $1 per phone is a big deal.
> That bothered me as well because I don't have 10000 servers but only 3 and I
> don't have the 200 talented C/C++ programmers of Google to write the macros
> and compiler I get for free with a Common Lisp. So at the break I asked him
> if he though his arguments were applicable to small companies or what
> language he would use in that case. "No, I would use Lisp" he replied.
--
Wade
(format t "Email: ~A"
(map 'string
'code-char
'(119 104 117 109 101 110 105 117 64
116 101 108 117 115 46 110 101 116)))
Daniel Barlow
> That argument is not quite valid, as machine performance increases,
> in 18 months those 10,000 servers may be down to 5,000. Now you
> have diminishing returns
But what we're talking about here is an internet search engine. The
size of the searchable internet grows at a rate (a) slower, (b)
matching, or (c) exceeding the rate that the performance of your
server farm grows?
My guess is that the searchable internet probably grows faster than
the number of web pages in itself does, as tools are developed to pick
out information from previously opaque resources (Google does Word
documents and PDF files already, maybe in future we'll see it attack
Excel spreadsheets, Flash and Powerpoint presentations etc etc).
OK, there's an assumption implicit in there that a Powerpoint
presentation ever actually _does_ contain any information, but you
catch my drift. http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ is relevant to the
point I'm not trying to make, here.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Jeremy Yallop
> (Google does Word documents and PDF files already, maybe in future
> we'll see it attack Excel spreadsheets, Flash and Powerpoint
> presentations etc etc).
Google actually indexes Excel and Powerpoint files already.
http://www.google.com/help/faq_filetypes.html
Jeremy.
Andre van Meulebrouck
"Fred Gilham" <gil...@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote in message
news:u7lm4d3...@snapdragon.csl.sri.com...
> One talk, which I thought was going to be very different, was about
> what the presenter called `ubiquitous Lisp'. Unfortunately his idea
> was something like the following: Lisp is really just closures,
> Javascript has closures, Javascript is everywhere, let's call
> Javascript "Lisp" and declare victory.
I think that is a gross mischaracterization of my talk.
I'd like to set the record straight.
The conventional world is stealing LISP hubcaps rather than just stealing
the whole CAR. Given that approach, I think the most valuable aspect of
LISP for a conventional language to acquire is closures (by far!). (If we
could get only one feature into a conventional language from LISP, that
would be the feature to shoot for.)
Javascript has them, and that is no small thing. (Perl does too, but has no
object system, and features dynamic scoping. Java and Python don't have
closures.)
That's about as far as I'd agree with your summary.
I never claimed that LISP is just closures. I made it very clear that there
are many aspects of LISP beyond closures that are worth having; in
particular a simple syntax. I even mentioned that Javascript needs macros
but if it had macros it would be a mess because of the complicated syntax.
The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
better left to Sisyphus).
I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause for
declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
conventional languages half way.
It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible rather
than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good. (For
instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression based:
this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope of
an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization, perhaps
it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to learn
it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot of
users, to get those users you must be widespread.
Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
than it has?
I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics have
been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby gathering
more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting priorities
straight!
Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse trap,
it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to offer,
but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our part.
> Perhaps coincidentally, the
> speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous pot
shot.
First of all it is none of anyone's business what my comings and goings were
at the conference, leave alone announcing it to the entire world as a matter
of permanent public record henceforth. I would think conference attendees
would have much greater respect for the privacy of fellow attendees than
that.
I had a job to do (presenting) and I accomplished it. End of story! I did
my part!
Secondly, I did not have my expenses picked up by any company: they were
all coming out of my own pocket. I had to pay the standard conference
attendance fee merely to present, even though I attended no talks on the day
I presented.
I wanted to attend the future of LISP meeting and the 2nd day of the
conference, but that would have meant more expense and more vacation days
used up.
Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like LISP
to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how much
we are willing to do.
Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
desiring our time, money, and attention.
As it was, I stayed after my talk long enough so that anyone who wished to
ask questions or give me feedback had an opportunity to do so; even though
it delayed the long drive I had ahead of me. (I wound up arriving home very
late, with little time to rest before reporting back to work.)
Gimme a break!
Tim Bradshaw
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
> With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
> than it has?
I don't think the CL community is doing much R&D into programming
languages, as a community. If it was then I expect CL would be
associated with a plethora of enhancements to the language. There are
lots of enhancements to CL, of course, but they tend to be of the
`semi-standard binding to SQL databases' type, which I don't think is
the same thing as, say `new model for massively parallel computation'
type - connectivity to SQL databases, for instance, is something that
you really do need to get accepted. The most linguistic-level
enhancements I'm aware of would be threading &c, but even those are no
longer researchy-type things: everyone has threads.
So I think the CL community really is trying to make CL more
widespread at the expense of language research. There may be other
`lisp' communities (perhaps the scheme community) where things are
different, but they are different groups of people by & large.
--tim
PS I'm not trying to put your talk down. I wasn't at the conference,
and even if I was, and disagreed with what you said, I appreciate the
effort too much to want to be nasty...
Marco Antoniotti
Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes:
...
> So I think the CL community really is trying to make CL more
> widespread at the expense of language research. There may be other
> `lisp' communities (perhaps the scheme community) where things are
> different, but they are different groups of people by & large.
...
While I agree with your point, note that there may be some "researchy"
topics which could be helpful to CL as a whole, however, it is now
unclear where one could send papers to (unless you write about "Crazy
Typing Classes for a Variant of Concurrent INTERCAL". :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Kenny Tilton
Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
> it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
> world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
> better left to Sisyphus).
Two thoughts. One, if we think selling Lisp is hard, wait till we try
influencing the JavaScript designers. Two, Lisp will lose a lot of its
appeal morphed into JavaScript, making it harder for Lisp to prevail. I
get your idea of playing the virus if we can't stomp the beast, but then
I think we /are/ stomping the beast already, most CLers just do not
realize it yet.
> Rather it should
> encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> conventional languages half way.
Screw conventional languages. ;) We have just begun to fight, and we are
winning. Python, Java, and Perl are lame efforts to stave off the
inevitable triumph of Lisp. As when the communist block attempted to
turn itself around by allowing a little capitalism and a little
political freedom.
>
> It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible rather
> than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
> However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
This gives me a whole new perspective on "upbeat". ;) Hey, your love of
Lisp is obvious, but don't, um, despair, that other branch in the tree
of languages is now growing in our direction because they want what we
have. And I would not call them hubcaps, they want our fuel injection,
ABS, airbags, and low drag coefficient. As with my communism analogy, it
is only a matter of time before they go for sexprs, then the fat lady sings.
I like to point out here that I remember when IT had standardized once
and for all on COBOL, VSAM, CICS, BASIC, and Pascal. C++ dominated for
about a week. Now, fuggedaboutit, nothing is going to stop Java. (Ignore
those people over there doing Python, Perl, and Ruby.)
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
It is impossible to lose weight. One can change change one's life
drastically: change what and how much one eats, restructure one's life
to make time for regular exercise, but one cannot lose weight.
By the same token, we cannot make Lisp more popular. We can make Lisp
even better (an open source ODB or GUI or whatever) and we can talk Lisp
up (KP's bit on slashdot was great), but all in all i think we should
forget popularity as a primary goal. Besides, it is happening anyway. We
just need to grease the skids with a Lisp browser plug-in or other cool
stuff in "100% Pure Lisp".
>
> With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
> than it has?
The problem is the minds not in the Lisp community. almost all IT types
are followers. We do not need to win over the herd, we need to win over
the few who lead the herd. And looked at this way, it becomes clear why
popularity is not something one tackles head on, because the herd is
really just following a few; they do not even have free will, how are we
going to win them over?
> Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
> focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby gathering
> more of a grass roots following).
How does a more Lisp-y JavaScript create revenue for Lisp vendors?
>>Perhaps coincidentally, the
>>speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
>
>
> While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous pot
> shot.
FWIW, it was offered and taken (by me, at least) in jest.
btw, thx for opening my eyes to JavaScript. I was unaware that the Java
in front was a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing deal.
Erann Gat
"Andre van Meulebrouck" <vanm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Java and Python don't have closures.
Python has had closures since version 2:
Python 2.2b2 (#1, Dec 4 2001, 02:00:33)
[GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-85)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> def foo(x): return lambda(y): x+y
...
>>> baz = foo(3)
>>> baz(5)
8
Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
interpreted language."
E.
Daniel Barlow
[closures]
> Javascript has them, and that is no small thing. (Perl does too, but has no
> object system, and features dynamic scoping. Java and Python don't have
> closures.)
Perl has a perfectly good object system. If it depends a little more
on convention and a little less on compiler-enforced syntax for object
semantics, then at least the conventions are pretty sane. It also has
lexical scope (I'm not sure if you're unaware of "my" or you consider
that even providing dynamic scope as an _option_ is a bad thing)
Java kinda sorta has closures in the shape of inner classes, but I
agree they're basically too painful to be useful in practice.
I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
scoping works in that language, which suggests that (a) it's messy,
and (b) eventually I'm just going to have to learn the damn language
myself. It does have a toplevel in which one can define new functions
- an improvement on the mozilla javascript console, at least.
> I never claimed that LISP is just closures. I made it very clear that there
> are many aspects of LISP beyond closures that are worth having; in
> particular a simple syntax. I even mentioned that Javascript needs macros
> but if it had macros it would be a mess because of the complicated syntax.
>
> The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
> it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
> world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
> better left to Sisyphus).
This is where I don't understand your approach. Language extensibility
via macros is a killer feature for Lisp, but it's exactly the feature
that javascript, say, would resist, because as you've identified
above, it'd be a mess. That suggests to me that we can't turn
javascript into lisp. So how exactly _do_ we leverage this door?
(My parents used to tell me off for swinging on door handles, fwiw)
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
Google searches suggest to me that your major involvement with Lisp
tends more towards Scheme than CL, and so perhaps you have a different
perspective on this than the majority of comp.lang.lisp posters (who
are as far as I can tell, tending more towards CL). I don't see much
if any language R&D going on here; I see exactly these discussions and
initiatives to promote Lisp in a broader market. Look at CLiki (URL
in my .signature), for example, and tell me what the proportion of new
language feature proposals is compared to the number of "boring"
web/database/corba/graphics/networking/etc glue libraries.
I concede that Google searches are a pretty blunt instrument, though,
so if I've mischaracterised your persopective on that basis, I
apologize. What kinds of initiatives would you like to see the Lisp
community get involved in? I'm looking for concrete suggestions.
Michael Hudson
> I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> scoping works in that language,
OK, what do you *want* to know?
Cheers,
M.
--
if-you-need-your-own-xxx.py-you-know-where-to-shove-it<wink>-ly
y'rs - tim
-- Tim Peters dishes out versioning advice on python-dev
Fred Gilham
> > Perhaps coincidentally, the
> > speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
>
> While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap,
> gratuitous pot shot.
>
> First of all it is none of anyone's business what my comings and
> goings were at the conference, leave alone announcing it to the
> entire world as a matter of permanent public record henceforth. I
> would think conference attendees would have much greater respect for
> the privacy of fellow attendees than that.
>
> I had a job to do (presenting) and I accomplished it. End of story!
> I did my part!
>
> Secondly, I did not have my expenses picked up by any company: they
> were all coming out of my own pocket. I had to pay the standard
> conference attendance fee merely to present, even though I attended
> no talks on the day I presented.
>
> I wanted to attend the future of LISP meeting and the 2nd day of the
> conference, but that would have meant more expense and more vacation
> days used up.
I want to say that I regret causing offense to Andre van Meulebrouc.
While my comment was meant humorously, I can see that I didn't take
into consideration the level of effort for some that was involved in
just attending the conference, and my comment made light of that
effort. I appreciate the fact that a number of people paid for the
conference, or their travel (in this case) out of their own pockets.
I was subsidized by my company both in fees and time. People who are
willing to pay to attend show an encouraging level of commitment, one
that I didn't have to match, at least in this particular instance.
I thought his talk was well presented and made a point. I disagreed
with the point, but the fact that I was able to understand it enough
to disagree with it indicates that it was clear, at least to that
extent. My comments did not rise to the level of being a complete
characterization of the talk.
This talk certainly belonged at the conference. Its author was trying
to make a contribution to the future of Lisp and had done some solid
work.
--
Fred Gilham gil...@csl.sri.com
Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into
the slaughterhouse. --- James Ostrowski
Duane Rettig
> "Fred Gilham" <gil...@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote in message
> news:u7lm4d3...@snapdragon.csl.sri.com...
> > One talk, which I thought was going to be very different, was about
> > what the presenter called `ubiquitous Lisp'. Unfortunately his idea
> > was something like the following: Lisp is really just closures,
> > Javascript has closures, Javascript is everywhere, let's call
> > Javascript "Lisp" and declare victory.
>
> I think that is a gross mischaracterization of my talk.
>
> I'd like to set the record straight.
I unfortunately was not able to attend your talk (I was having severe eye
trouble and couldn't get into the City until after noon each day). I also
want to start by expressing my appreciation that you took the trouble to
give the talk.
However, the "setting the record straight" doesn't really do much for me;
I still see much the same attitude in your clarification as Fred apparently
saw in the talk.
> The conventional world is stealing LISP hubcaps rather than just stealing
> the whole CAR.
Everyone "steals" ideas. In fact, it couldn't gratify the Lisp community
more than to see other langauges learn from them. "Imitation is the most
sincere form of flattery". I suspect that they'll never steal the whole
CDR, though. :-)
> Given that approach, I think the most valuable aspect of
> LISP for a conventional language to acquire is closures (by far!). (If we
> could get only one feature into a conventional language from LISP, that
> would be the feature to shoot for.)
As others have stated, languages are already doing that.
> Javascript has them, and that is no small thing. (Perl does too, but has no
> object system, and features dynamic scoping. Java and Python don't have
> closures.)
>
> That's about as far as I'd agree with your summary.
>
> I never claimed that LISP is just closures. I made it very clear that there
> are many aspects of LISP beyond closures that are worth having; in
> particular a simple syntax. I even mentioned that Javascript needs macros
> but if it had macros it would be a mess because of the complicated syntax.
>
> The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP as
> it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the conventional
> world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a job
> better left to Sisyphus).
> I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause for
> declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
> encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> conventional languages half way.
This is being done, without abdicating Lisp itself. Instead, we build
bridges between Lisp and other languages, thus making it a great connection
glue even in areas where other languages have found a niche.
> It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible rather
> than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
As was pointed out by another poster, this sentence doesn't ring true, due
to the smashing of the optimism that you do so well in the next (incorrect)
sentence:
> However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
How does a language, which has no hardware coattails to ride behind like
C/C++, but which supports four or five commercial vendors and at least
as many free/opensource vendors, fail mbadly at marketing? Does it need
100% of all markets to be sucessful?
> (For
> instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression based:
> this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope of
> an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
Lisp is gracious to allow XML to languish in its niche, and to help it along
by providing tools for working with and generating XML.
> If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization, perhaps
> it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
> recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to learn
> it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot of
> users, to get those users you must be widespread.
So what is it that you are repeating? What, for example, is JavaScript
learning?
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
What R&D is it that you think is taking Lisp from its primary goal?
> With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better market
> than it has?
The world is Lisp's market. My wife and I just watched our DVD of a James
Bond video again, and its title says it all - apparently, "The World is
Not Enough".
> I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics have
> been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
> otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
> focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby gathering
> more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting priorities
> straight!
Whose budget are you looking at? My question above still stands, along with
another: What R&D is being squandered away by the Lisp community? And
whose financial health would removing such R&D thus improve?
> Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse trap,
> it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to offer,
> but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
> accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our part.
What part have you been doing? What use of Lisp are you making, and how does
promulgating JavaScript count as "making Lisp acceptable"?
> > Perhaps coincidentally, the
> > speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
>
> While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous pot
> shot.
> First of all it is none of anyone's business what my comings and goings were
> at the conference, leave alone announcing it to the entire world as a matter
> of permanent public record henceforth. I would think conference attendees
> would have much greater respect for the privacy of fellow attendees than
> that.
Well, I just saw it as a simple dig. Perhaps you are more sensitive than you
think. "Methinks thou doest protest too much" - you did make yourself
public by giving a talk.
> Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like LISP
> to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how much
> we are willing to do.
Volunteering to do Lisp work is admirable, and if you enjoy it as a hobby,
that's fine too. But here you are obviously either burnt out on doing either
of these things, and so you should progress to the next step, which is to
actually program Lisp for _money_. That will take the tiredness right out
of you. :-)
> Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
> desiring our time, money, and attention.
And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
serious). Now, some others may respond something like "But it's hard to
get a Lisp job!", or even, "It's _impossible_ to get a Lisp job!". To
those who say it's hard, I say "yes, good things in life are sometimes
hard". And to those who would dare say it's impossible, I say "OK, have
it your way" (in other words, if as a manager I were hiring you, I would
look for a "can do" attitude, and I simply don't see that in such a
statement).
> Gimme a break!
Give yourself a break. Come over to Lisp, and let JavaScript be just
another piece of software that needs to be interfaced to. You'll be
much happier.
--
Duane Rettig du...@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Marco Antoniotti
Michael Hudson <m...@python.net> writes:
> Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> writes:
>
> > I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> > scoping works in that language,
>
> OK, what do you *want* to know?
Is it lexical or dynamic?
Version 2.x fixed one very nasty and uninituitive aspect of the
scoping issues in Python (version 1.x), but I do not know if you can
the classify the language in either categories yet.
Alain Picard
> And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
> serious).
Sorry for the "me too" post, but this is just so true that it bears repeating.
And if you can't FIND a lisp job, then MAKE one instead. It's not impossible.
What is great is that once you start using Lisp at work, even when you work
on "non lispy" problems (i.e. things you could equally well do in "standard"
languages), life is still _so_ much better/cleaner/simpler. And pretty soon,
the people around you stop seeing lisp as a niche language and start accepting
it as "a programming language".
This effect is much like what happens(*) when racist people are made to live
or work with people of the unknown race; they discover that those people
are just... well... people.
Stop the Lisp bigotry now! :-)
(*) well, sometimes, when you're lucky.
Gareth McCaughan
> I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> scoping works in that language, which suggests that (a) it's messy,
> and (b) eventually I'm just going to have to learn the damn language
> myself. It does have a toplevel in which one can define new functions
> - an improvement on the mozilla javascript console, at least.
Python has
- one "builtin" scope;
- one scope per module;
- one scope per class (note: *not* per instance);
- one scope per function or method invocation.
Scopes nest lexically as in Lisp.
If a variable is assigned to within some scope, it is
assumed to be bound there (and a binding is made if
there wasn't one already). The only way to prevent
this is by declaring it "global" within the same
scope, in which case it is (throughout that scope)
assumed to live in the current module instead. One
consequence of this is that it is impossible to
assign to a variable inherited from a lexically
containing scope.
If a variable is not assigned to within some scope,
it is looked up in lexically containing scopes, starting
with the innermost. After that, it's looked for at
module scope. Again, a "global" declaration will make it
go directly to module scope.
All lookups at module scope check the builtin scope too.
Operations that do explicit evaluation (the "exec"
statement, and the "eval", "input" and "execfile"
functions) share the scope of the invoking context.
Things that don't look like they're in any module
(e.g., stuff you type at the interactive prompt)
are really in a module called "__main__".
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Kenny Tilton
Alain Picard wrote:
> This effect is much like what happens(*) when racist people are made to live
> or work with people of the unknown race; they discover that those people
> are just... well... people.
>
> Stop the Lisp bigotry now! :-)
>
>
>
> (*) well, sometimes, when you're lucky.
Caveat sadly well-advised. At least one study showed no such effect.
Seems bigots just filter the experience to let in only things that
support their bias (and I imagine recast non-confirming inputs into
confirming ones). This phenomenon extends beyond bigotry. Folks with any
sort of conviction (such as lost mariners who only think they know where
they are) take great encouragement from any data point supporting them,
meanwhile explain away contradictory inputs. And now I am almost back on
topic in re getting MegaCorp to use Lisp.
:)
Erik Naggum
| Version 2.x fixed one very nasty and uninituitive aspect of the scoping
| issues in Python (version 1.x), but I do not know if you can the classify
| the language in either categories yet.
Is there not some kind of mission statement for Python that could be used
as a predictor, at least, of what Python may eventually end up with? Or
have they optimized for unsearchable judgments and ways past finding out?
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Now showing on CNN: Harry Potter and the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chris Double
> I am sorry you weren't at the conference, Chris. Your name came up
> in a number of conversations. I know it would have been a very long
> trip for you.
I was disappointed too. Work had indicated to me they would pay my way
to get there but due to administration problems the approval to do it
came too late. Next time I'll pay my own way just to make sure!
Chris.
--
http://www.double.co.nz/cl
Harald Hanche-Olsen
| Is there not some kind of mission statement for Python that could be
| used as a predictor, at least, of what Python may eventually end up
| with? Or have they optimized for unsearchable judgments and ways
| past finding out?
They have PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals?) some of which will make
it into the language. Guido of course has the last word, but PEPs are
regularly discussed on comp.lang.python, and following that group is
probably the best way to find out which way the language is heading.
(I no longer read c.l.py, as I don't use the language much anymore and
the amount of traffic there has become overwhelming anyway - so things
may have changed.)
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Yes it works in practice - but does it work in theory?
Andre van Meulebrouck
"Tim Bradshaw" <t...@cley.com> wrote in message
news:ey38z04...@cley.com...
> * Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
>
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
market
> > than it has?
>
> I don't think the CL community is doing much R&D into programming
> languages, as a community.
> So I think the CL community really is trying to make CL more
> widespread at the expense of language research. There may be other
> `lisp' communities (perhaps the scheme community) where things are
> different, but they are different groups of people by & large.
What I had in mind was ACM LISP and Functional Programming conference
material that is more theoretical like lambda calculus, combinators,
denotational semantics, and beyond.
All crucial topics; but given a choice of more emphasis on marketing LISP
versus more esoteric stuff and I'd have to opt for the former (at least in
the short run).
I'd love to see ILC '03 have a theme of "Marketing LISP" and invite papers
on that topic; with perhaps 2 or 3 days devoted to papers on that topic.
If the LISP community focused on making LISP more widespread I have
confidence it could be achieved by the brain power within the community.
[...]
> PS I'm not trying to put your talk down. I wasn't at the conference,
> and even if I was, and disagreed with what you said, I appreciate the
> effort too much to want to be nasty...
I know you're not; and I don't want to give the impression to anyone that I
would jump on anyone for disagreeing. I welcome it: that's the very
purpose of academia and conferences.
The only caveat is: I want people to talk about my topic; not me!
And of course, I would hope that critics would at least be fair!
Thanks for your kind words.
Jens Axel Søgaard
> In article <_hMy9.1126$Aq5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <vanm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Java and Python don't have closures.
> Python has had closures since version 2:
> Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
> interpreted language."
There are still some problems according to
http://www.p-nand-q.com/lambda.htm
It appears that the body of the lambda-expression must be an expression
(and not all statements in Python is expressions).
Des Small
> In article <_hMy9.1126$Aq5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <vanm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Java and Python don't have closures.
>
> Python has had closures since version 2:
This can be disputed.
> Python 2.2b2 (#1, Dec 4 2001, 02:00:33)
> [GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-85)] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> def foo(x): return lambda(y): x+y
> ...
> >>> baz = foo(3)
> >>> baz(5)
> 8
My turn! Suppose we want to mutate a variable from an outer scope:
Python 2.2b2 (#1, Nov 21 2001, 14:42:03)
[GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-81)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> def bar(x):
... def acc(y):
... x += y # assignment is a "statement" so can't go in a lambda
... return x
... return acc
...
>>> qux = bar(0)
>>> qux(0)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
File "<stdin>", line 3, in acc
UnboundLocalError: local variable 'x' referenced before assignment
Oops! No can do. This bites. Certainly it bites me, hard and more
often than I'd like. If "closures" which use this kind of
look-but-don't-touch scoping are good enough for you, then python has
closures. (They fixed scoping, and now I wish they'd fix the fix.
Sigh.)
Incidentally, there's a thread over in comp.lang.python at the moment
about Lisp, if anyone wants to pop over for a spot of gentle advocacy.
It would make a pleasant change if somebody put the case for today's
Lisp over there - these discussions are usually dominated by
traumatised ex-students of delinquent AI professors, with the
occasional Scheme weenie frothing about the Inherent Necessity of tail
call elimination.
> Saying "Python doesn't have closures" is like saying "Lisp is a slow,
> interpreted language."
The former is debatable, the latter is a category error. How about
"Lisp is popular with academics doing AI"?
Des
--
Des Small, Scientific Programmer,
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, UK.
Andre van Meulebrouck
"Kenny Tilton" <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3DCBDF1B...@nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Andre van Meulebrouck wrote:
> > The fact that a widespread language like Javascript is as close to LISP
as
> > it is; I view as an open door that should be leveraged: the
conventional
> > world is converging on LISP and helping that process along might be more
> > fruitful than trying to sell the world on LISP (the latter might be a
job
> > better left to Sisyphus).
>
> Two thoughts. One, if we think selling Lisp is hard, wait till we try
> influencing the JavaScript designers.
Why? You don't have to bother with Javascript designers; you merely have to
participate in the standards committees for ECMAScript.
And, the LISP community could circumvent even that issue by coming out with
SchemeScript and creating browsers that support both Javascript and
SchemeScript as scripting languages.
> Two, Lisp will lose a lot of its
> appeal morphed into JavaScript, making it harder for Lisp to prevail.
That's an important issue to grapple with and I addressed it in both my
paper and my presentation. (Generally my presentation went beyond my paper;
but there are a few things in the paper not in the presentation.)
I think the world is big enough to support burgers and fine dinning (and
sometimes fine dinners feel like eating burgers and vice versa).
In other words, I see no problem in the masses have a shlock LISP. LISP
becoming popular would not be the death of LISP. There is still plenty of
room for purists versions of LISP; and with a greater influx of users and
money, I am certain there would be plenty to go around to make every
conceivable taste in LISP quite happy.
In other words, an infusion of money and popularity would be the tide that
floats all boats.
> I
> get your idea of playing the virus if we can't stomp the beast,
Well said! Nice way of putting it.
> but then
> I think we /are/ stomping the beast already, most CLers just do not
> realize it yet.
I don't see how: I'm not following you. Perhaps you could elaborate?
I think a Scheme based scripting language is necessary for the masses
because Common LISP is a little too large and high end for the average joe.
> > Rather it should
> > encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> > conventional languages half way.
>
> Screw conventional languages. ;) We have just begun to fight, and we are
> winning. Python, Java, and Perl are lame efforts to stave off the
> inevitable triumph of Lisp. As when the communist block attempted to
> turn itself around by allowing a little capitalism and a little
> political freedom.
Hope you're right, but I don't see that as the case in Javascript.
> > It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible
rather
> > than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
> > However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> > LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
>
> This gives me a whole new perspective on "upbeat". ;) Hey, your love of
> Lisp is obvious, but don't, um, despair, that other branch in the tree
> of languages is now growing in our direction because they want what we
> have. And I would not call them hubcaps, they want our fuel injection,
> ABS, airbags, and low drag coefficient.
Yes.
> As with my communism analogy, it
> is only a matter of time before they go for sexprs, then the fat lady
sings.
I'm not sure that's the case in Javascript.
When I first starting working in Javascript, I saw Scheme nomenclature in it
and Scheme fingerprints all over it.
Then the O'Reilly Javascript book came right out and said it by comparing
"functional literals" (closures) to "LISP". Dare they utter the "L" word?
I had the feeling I was being let in on a deep dark secret that Microsoft
would just as soon no one knew about (lest the "L" word prove the kiss of
death for marketing).
However, I have never met another Javascript programmer that uses closures,
nor even knows what they are; leave alone that they are in Javascript.
I've been told by Javascript programmers that they have never seen a
Javacript programming style like mine before anywhere (not on usenet, not on
the net, not anywhere).
When I try to explain closures to Javascript programmers, they not only fail
to get it; they look as if they feel threatened. Only one conventional
programmer understood me; but that's because they have a background in LISP
from Emacs. (And I thought I was good at explaining things! =:0)
I've yet to meet someone who doesn't have a LISP background that understands
closures.
So, why are closures in Javascript if they aren't being pushed or even used?
How did they get there? Inquiring minds want to know; so I asked the
inventor of Javacript whether it had any LISP heritage (on the sly or
otherwise), via e-mail. No response (presumably they are innundated with
e-mail). However, Netscape has a parser/grammar in CL so I do suspect at
least some LISPiness at Netscape, though this is all terribly anecdotal
conjecture on my part.
I have yet to see a Javascript programmer ask for macros or a first class IF
function.
Languages can expand our thinking or limit it. If the language doesn't
support a feature; you're less likely to imagine it in its absence.
Exposure to LISP is the antidote to tunnel vision; that's my feeling on it.
> I like to point out here that I remember when IT had standardized once
> and for all on COBOL, VSAM, CICS, BASIC, and Pascal. C++ dominated for
> about a week. Now, fuggedaboutit, nothing is going to stop Java. (Ignore
> those people over there doing Python, Perl, and Ruby.)
You are persuasive and give me hope! I see your point. Good observation.
No matter how strong things seem now; the industry is very quick to move on
to new things: you're point is well taken.
Likewise, I recall when the newspapers were full of ads for PICK BASIC; now
that's a dinosaur with a flash-in-the-pan history.
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> By the same token, we cannot make Lisp more popular.
How about if we agree to disagree about that: I think we can and should
(and MUST) make LISP more popular by making it more accessible and via
education efforts (short of evangelism).
> We can make Lisp
> even better (an open source ODB or GUI or whatever) and we can talk Lisp
> up (KP's bit on slashdot was great), but all in all i think we should
> forget popularity as a primary goal. Besides, it is happening anyway. We
> just need to grease the skids with a Lisp browser plug-in or other cool
> stuff in "100% Pure Lisp".
Hear hear on the LISP browser! That's right out of my talk!
> > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
market
> > than it has?
>
> The problem is the minds not in the Lisp community. almost all IT types
> are followers. We do not need to win over the herd, we need to win over
> the few who lead the herd. And looked at this way, it becomes clear why
> popularity is not something one tackles head on, because the herd is
> really just following a few; they do not even have free will, how are we
> going to win them over?
By innovative products!
By continually trying new things until we find something that does the
trick.
By not giving up (move over Sisyphus!).
> > Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if LISP
> > focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby
gathering
> > more of a grass roots following).
>
> How does a more Lisp-y JavaScript create revenue for Lisp vendors?
By being a step in the right direction. By incrementalism. By making it
easier to write code transformers from LISP to Javascript (which would get
easier as Javascript gets cleaner). By trying to meet in the middle.
By combining that with a LISP browser that supports Javascript so that
Javascript programmers will want to move over to LISP in a non-threatening
way at their own pace.
> >>Perhaps coincidentally, the
> >>speaker left town immediately after the talk. :-)
> >
> > While I don't offend easily, I really think that's a cheap, gratuitous
pot
> > shot.
>
> FWIW, it was offered and taken (by me, at least) in jest.
Oh I'm sure it was. I probably have thin skin too.
However, given what I saw as an unfairly mocking (and even condescending)
misrepresentation of my presentation, the joking innuendo was seen by me as
more condescension and tantamount to telling tales out of school.
I'm much more shy and retiring than I probably seem (I probably seem more
extroverted than I really am). And as open as I seem I view my privacy as
extremely sacrosanct.
So, I am very interesting in talking about a topic but not becoming the
topic; i.e. I don't like it when it gets personal and people want to talk
about me personally.
If the same joking comment had come from a trusted friend, I would take it
as a good natured needling (that's what friends are for ;-) . But coming
from someone that doesn't know me from Adam behind my back (I never normally
read this list or usenet), in a public forum that gets archived forevermore
and can turn up in search engines; well that's a bit of a different story,
and I bet you'd see it more my way if you were on the receiving end of a
barb rather than being a disinterested observer. (Though you might handle
it better than I did, I bet you dollars to donuts you might have some
colorful words for the sender of such a barb privately.)
I came across the review quite by accident and it really made my blood
pressure go up!
However, the person in question and I have exchanged e-mails privately and
there is no rancor: I'll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding and try to
develop thicker skin, but I do insist that the internet, and the LISP
community in particular, need to have better civility and respect. I've
seen jihads on language groups where lofty individuals behave like children
and post privately received flaming e-mails into public forums just to
humiliate opponents they got angry at. That's truly pathetic. That makes
the entire community look bad.
The LISP community can't afford that sort of thing: a small, marginalized
community must be more guarded against infighting and divisions by being a
cut above the general populace in civility and decency, with a realization
that everyone in the LISP community is an ambassador for LISP.
Nuf' said (I'll get off the soap box now!).
> btw, thx for opening my eyes to JavaScript.
I assume by that you mean you didn't know previously how close to LISP it
was. If so, you're welcome. That's what I'm here for! =:0)
Andre van Meulebrouck
news:gat-081102...@192.168.1.51...
> In article <_hMy9.1126$Aq5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <vanm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Java and Python don't have closures.
>
> Python has had closures since version 2:
I stand corrected. I was fooled by this dated article:
http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$462
Henrik Motakef
There are problems with lambdas, but you don't have to use them.
>>> def foo(x):
... def f(y):
... print "Hello, World!" # <-- doesn't work in a lamda expr
... return x + y
... return f
...
>>> bar = foo(2)
>>> baz = foo(3)
>>> bar(1)
Hello, World!
3
>>> baz(1)
Hello, World!
4
>>>
Additionally, I don't know any statement that couldn't be translated
into an expression, for example "print 'foo'" could be written
"sys.stdout.write('foo\n')". But that often becomes clumsy.
Regards
Henrik
Andre van Meulebrouck
"Daniel Barlow" <d...@telent.net> wrote in message
news:87y984g...@noetbook.telent.net...
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <vanm...@earthlink.net> writes:
> This is where I don't understand your approach. Language extensibility
> via macros is a killer feature for Lisp, but it's exactly the feature
> that javascript, say, would resist, because as you've identified
> above, it'd be a mess. That suggests to me that we can't turn
> javascript into lisp. So how exactly _do_ we leverage this door?
I've outlined some of this in my paper (are the proceedings out yet)?
Program transformations from LISP to less pure, more mucked up syntaxes.
Even in a mucked up syntax, I still think macros are worth having.
Propose syntax changes/extensions to the standards committees.
I.e. alternative, functional operator syntaxes (as extensions); even if
programmers didn't use them, macros could.
If you supported Javascript via LISP syntax and had a converter to convert
it to C style syntax, the gap could slowly be closed up.
If the LISP world supported browsers/listeners that supported DHTML
standards and supported both SchemeScript and Javascript; the
transformations between the two would become less painful as they met in the
middle.
If script blocks in both languages were supported (as they are for VBScript
and Javascript), Javascript programmers could use LISP browsers supporting
W3C compliant standards and then slowly branch out to LISP at their own
pace.
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> Google searches suggest to me that your major involvement with Lisp
> tends more towards Scheme than CL,
I've used Common LISP in the past; but prefer Scheme, which I view as more
pure, lighter, more ubiquitous, less expensive, and more of a lingua franca.
I haven't worked for an employer for a very long time that uses Common LISP.
Most employers I've seen (including think tanks!) are dumping LISP and Macs
as fast as they possibly can. (Cost is not a concern for them when getting
rid of LISP and Macs!)
I want to be extremely mainstream; that leaves no room in my world for CL,
however I think it's a wonderful and industrial strength LISP. I am all in
favor of it.
But I don't see CL as being as good a bet for browser scripting, students,
and home users. Sorry! I'm interested in solutions for the masses.
> I don't see much
> if any language R&D going on here;
I answered this in another post, but to recap: I was refering to R&D of a
theoretical nature (lambda calculus, combinators, denotational semantics).
Those are extremely important but more esoteric offshoots are less
interesting to me at this time given LISP's marginalized status.
For instance, I'd rather see more papers on marketing LISP rather than
pondering whether the Milner Mycroft Calculus is tractable.
> What kinds of initiatives would you like to see the Lisp
> community get involved in? I'm looking for concrete suggestions.
Did you attend my talk?
I'd like to see all LISP vendors subsume the browser metaphor (is that the
right word?) into listeners that support W3C DHTML standards. That way LISP
would have DHTML in common with the rest of the world and if LISP browsers
supported Javascript that would make LISP accessible to non-LISP programmers
that care not a whit about LISP. (They might want such a
browser/environment just for web development or application writing; the
fact that it has LISP in it is foder for rainy day discoveries of LISP at
their liesure.)
When people want LISP products not because they use LISP but because the
LISP products are awesome; that's when LISP becomes very accessible and
ecumenical. The LISP market niche is too small if it's targeted purely to
LISP programmers.
I'd also like to see Scheme as a scripting language in a browser that also
supports Javascript (using the exact same engine).
I outlined ways that Javascript could be cleaned up without breaking
existing code, that would allow Javascript and SchemeScript to converge on
merely be different syntaxes or front ends for the same underlying engine.
This would then make LISP accessible: I see browsers as a poor man's
listener and all around development environment, complete with GUI making
facilities. (They are already being used that way; I'm simply suggesting
the insertion of LISP into the mix so that LISP can get in on the action.)
I'd also like to see LISP participation in DHTML standards to provide an
influx of good taste; and DHTML standards adopted by LISP for writing GUIs
so that LISP has more in common with the neighborhood kids. Using CLIM
while the rest of the world is using DHTML doesn't help LISP popularity.
This is the time to get in on the ground floor of DHTML standards before
they become set in stone.
Andre van Meulebrouck
> I want to say that I regret causing offense to Andre van Meulebrouck.
I appreciate that; and for my part I'll work on growing thicker skin and
developing better diplomacy.
Thanks.
Michael Hudson
lambda in Python is just a mistake. Give your function a name for
heavens sake!
Cheers,
M.
PS: examples showing why anonymous functions are useful in, e.g.,
Common Lisp are not relavent here.
--
While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic in
Quake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work. -- C Hacking
-- http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.html
Michael Hudson
> Michael Hudson <m...@python.net> writes:
>
> > Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> writes:
> >
> > > I still can't get a straight answer from any Python users about how
> > > scoping works in that language,
> >
> > OK, what do you *want* to know?
>
> Is it lexical or dynamic?
Hah. Well, the namespaces that are searched by a given look-up are
determined lexically, though the names in all of them are not known at
compile time.
There's nothing like CL's dynamic variables.
> Version 2.x fixed one very nasty and uninituitive aspect of the
> scoping issues in Python (version 1.x), but I do not know if you can
> the classify the language in either categories yet.
Pre-2.1, there were only three namespaces that were ever searched for
a name: the local namespace (which is determined lexically), the
"global" namespace (i.e. the namespace of the (lexically) enclosing
module, which although determined dynamically doesn't in practice
change frequently) and the "built-in" namespace (which is a little
like the CL package -- it contains stuff you expect to be "always
there").
Post-2.1, intermediate lexically enclosing namespaces (contents
determined at compile time) are also searched.
It's easier to use than explain...
Cheers,
M.
--
41. Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but
withstand progress.
-- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
Paolo Amoroso
wrote:
> Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
[...]
> He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
> was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
> dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
Hmmm... is he working on an ArcMachine?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
Erik Naggum
| I want to be extremely mainstream
| I'm interested in solutions for the masses.
There are two ways to do this. The first is to become indistinguishable
from everything else so the masses pick you at random and generally by
mistake. The second is to stand out and let the masses come to you. The
first option appears to be irrelevant. That must mean you believe you can
make the masses come your way. If you believe this, you should realize
that it does not matter what the "mainstream" and the masses are /today/,
because you can change that. Any position between these two is failure.
Andre van Meulebrouck
"Duane Rettig" <du...@franz.com> wrote in message
news:4wunnh...@beta.franz.com...
> "Andre van Meulebrouck" <vanm...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > The conventional world is stealing LISP hubcaps rather than just
stealing
> > the whole CAR.
>
> Everyone "steals" ideas.
Right, that's good. It's just frustrating to see them steal some of the
more trivial things rather than the meatier things; or reproduce LISP wheels
in inferior ways.
> In fact, it couldn't gratify the Lisp community
> more than to see other langauges learn from them.
Agreed.
> > Given that approach, I think the most valuable aspect of
> > LISP for a conventional language to acquire is closures (by far!). (If
we
> > could get only one feature into a conventional language from LISP, that
> > would be the feature to shoot for.)
>
> As others have stated, languages are already doing that.
Agreed. Thus my contention to help the process along.
> > I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause
for
> > declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
> > encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> > conventional languages half way.
>
> This is being done, without abdicating Lisp itself.
As I made clear in both my paper and presentation; I don't want to see LISP
give up its essence in the name of compromise.
However, I don't know what you would point to as efforts on the LISP side to
bridge the gap to the conventional world, so I can't comment further.
> Instead, we build
> bridges between Lisp and other languages, thus making it a great
connection
> glue even in areas where other languages have found a niche.
I'm happy to hear that, but haven't seen anything yet that I'd consider very
ubiquitous.
> > It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible
rather
> > than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
>
> As was pointed out by another poster, this sentence doesn't ring true, due
> to the smashing of the optimism that you do so well in the next
(incorrect)
> sentence:
I fail to see how those are not reconciled.
Some battles have been lost. Some can still be won. I wanted to focus on
the latter rather than the former.
> > However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> > LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
>
> How does a language, which has no hardware coattails to ride behind like
> C/C++, but which supports four or five commercial vendors and at least
> as many free/opensource vendors, fail mbadly at marketing? Does it need
> 100% of all markets to be sucessful?
I found the above a bit obtuse to parse, but assuming I'm following you...
LISP should not need hardware coattails. I don't get that at all. LISP
should be able to run on stock hardware. The hardware is out there, it's
cheap, it's plentiful, it's powerful enough. Compiler technology is awesome
these days. What's the problem?
> > (For
> > instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression
based:
> > this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope
of
> > an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
>
> Lisp is gracious to allow XML to languish in its niche, and to help it
along
> by providing tools for working with and generating XML.
Why didn't LISP lead the way in the first place so that we never had to see
XML? Or HTML?
> > If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization,
perhaps
> > it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
> > recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to
learn
> > it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot
of
> > users, to get those users you must be widespread.
>
> So what is it that you are repeating? What, for example, is JavaScript
> learning?
Usage data by users. Lots of users, using lots of machines, using lots of s
oftware to amass huge volumes of real world experience data.
The kind of data you cannot get by doing all the upfront thinking you can in
a lab.
Finding out the types of things you missed in the lab or didn't think of or
couldn't even imagine.
It's like planning a trip: at some point you must just go and learn by
doing. There are limits to how much you can plan or even imagine about what
you'll encounter along the way.
Testers and users are wonderful. The more the merrier.
> > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
more
> > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
>
> What R&D is it that you think is taking Lisp from its primary goal?
I'm answering this for the 3rd time, so I'll be brief. I'd like to see
applied R&D supplant more theoretical R&D until better financial stability
is arrived at. Then, more esoteric directions are okay to pursue once
again.
> > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
market
> > than it has?
>
> The world is Lisp's market. My wife and I just watched our DVD of a James
> Bond video again, and its title says it all - apparently, "The World is
> Not Enough".
???
> > I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics
have
> > been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
> > otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if
LISP
> > focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby
gathering
> > more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting
priorities
> > straight!
>
> Whose budget are you looking at? My question above still stands, along
with
> another: What R&D is being squandered away by the Lisp community? And
> whose financial health would removing such R&D thus improve?
I think pondering estorery when your house is burning down is not a good
idea.
I think getting your house in order should be a higher priority.
> > Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse
trap,
> > it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to
offer,
> > but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
> > accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our
part.
>
> What part have you been doing?
Did you attend my talk???
Writing, education, participation in fixing bugs and suggesting
improvements, participating in R&D, beta testing. At some point I want to
participate more closely with the actual standards process rather than going
through intermediaries.
Every day I program in conventional languages I'm working towards the goals
mentioned above (which you are asking me about); as long as I do it in a
LISP style rather than a conventional style. What good is theory if it
isn't applied? What good is LISP if it's not part of your essence? If it's
part of your essence, you don't have to have a LISP job. You can breathe
LISP into the conventional world, everywhere you go, in everything you do.
That is actually much more interesting to me than having a classical LISP
job!
The world can deprive me of LISP tools; but it can never deprive me of the
concepts I've taken from it. Hence, that is ultimate LISP job! That is the
ultimate LISP freedom!
> What use of Lisp are you making,
Using what I've learned from my experience in LISP and applying it to
whatever I am doing in whatever kind of tools I'm being asked to used in the
most mainstream situations I can possibly work in. That is my challenge!
Taking what I've learned from Lambda Calculus, combinators, theory, LISP,
etc.; then applying that to the most mundane situations the world has to
offer, and making a direct difference that can be immediately seen in font
line applications that are as widely deployed in the work-a-day world as I
can possibly get.
That gives me great satisifcation from seeing even the most esoteric ideas
applied to every day life to make life better for the greatest number of
average people as possible. I'm very interested in the plight of the
working stiff and the average joe on the street. If you can't make a
difference to them, what good are your tools???
I feel that if what I learned from LISP can only be applied by using LISP
itself; then I do not understand LISP at all! My knowledge of LISP would
not be applied enough to make me happy.
I would much prefer to apply LISP by writing a LISP interpreter inside a
conventional application than to actually use LISP from a LISP vendor. I'd
learn a great deal more by having to implement the LISP I use rather than
using a LISP someone else wrote.
If given a choice of M*A*S*H style real world, front line programming; or
R&D LISP programming, I might actually prefer, and be happier, in the former
situation; and might not be able to find a satisfying home in the later.
The challenge I'm interested in is applying theory to the mundane rather
than into R&D enclaves.
> and how does
> promulgating JavaScript count as "making Lisp acceptable"?
Did you attend my talk or read my paper? It's all explained in there
already.
My bottom line, non-negotiable starting point is that I only want to use the
most ubiquitous tools that are available (and that is never LISP, at least
not yet); and to be as recession proof as possible, and to be as mainstream
as possible.
From that starting point, I want to apply LISP techniques and concepts (if
not LISP itself) to those situations. That is what I find interesting.
> Well, I just saw it as a simple dig. Perhaps you are more sensitive than
you
> think. "Methinks thou doest protest too much" - you did make yourself
> public by giving a talk.
Giving a public talk means I want my topic to be in the limelight, not me!
I never wanted to be the topic in a personal way. Giving a public talk
should not avail me to pot shots and target practise. If it does; I'm not
interested. I have no interest in a situation with that level of
incivility. I feel we have an obligation to serve. But if being of service
means being a target; I no longer feel any obligation to serve (at least not
in that type of venue). There is a difference in being a servant and being
an abused toadie.
I do not think asking people to maintain impersonality is too much to ask.
In general I believe incivility is rampant in society; and I don't think
that's a good thing.
> > Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like
LISP
> > to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how
much
> > we are willing to do.
>
> Volunteering to do Lisp work is admirable, and if you enjoy it as a hobby,
> that's fine too. But here you are obviously either burnt out on doing
either
> of these things,
I'm overworked, to be sure; it's part of the turf, but I do not mind that
part so much.
The only part I do mind is personal attacks.
I will happily march through hell for anyone that is even half way
reasonable to me; but if you wish to put your finger in my eye; that's when
we're going to have problems. I have very little patience for that; but
infinite patience otherwise (even for honest mistakes).
> and so you should progress to the next step, which is to
> actually program Lisp for _money_. That will take the tiredness right out
> of you. :-)
For writing LISP articles, sure. Writing about combinators, sure. LISP
style programming in Javascript, and DHTML absolutely.
But a LISP job using LISP itself; I just can't imagine that (though I have
done it in the past here and there). I don't want to do that again until
LISP becomes ubiquitous. My pragmatic side would never hear of it! My
philosophy of the ubiquitous would never allow it. That for me would indeed
be selling out.
LISP burned far too many people in varying degrees due to the vagaries of
the LISP market. Can't you possibly imagine why some people might be a
little gun shy of LISP?
Until LISP becomes ubiquitous I must remain on the mainstream side of the
fence and work towards the LISP side of the fence; not the reverse.
I also have little faith in the world, which I see as a house of cards. I'm
surprised it stays together as well as it does! Part of my philosophy of
the ubiquitous is to be as survivable as humanly possible.
If war and recession cause societal collapse; all that is estoeric will be
for naught. It must remain in moth balls for a better day. R&D thrives on
the fat of society!
But all that is practical will survive. That is where I want to be!
> > Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
> > desiring our time, money, and attention.
>
> And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
> serious).
If that is the case for you I am happy for you.
We need you people on the LISP side of the fence.
But we all march to a different drum; I must remain on the other side of the
fence until the two sides meet in the middle.
Please help me tear down the wall in between!
> Now, some others may respond something like "But it's hard to
> get a Lisp job!", or even, "It's _impossible_ to get a Lisp job!". To
> those who say it's hard, I say "yes, good things in life are sometimes
> hard". And to those who would dare say it's impossible, I say "OK, have
> it your way" (in other words, if as a manager I were hiring you, I would
> look for a "can do" attitude, and I simply don't see that in such a
> statement).
Actually it's not hard to find LISP jobs (I've turned down quite a few
myself); but one thing you must give up to get a LISP job is geographical
preference.
You must follow the LISP jobs to wherever they are geographically. And they
are typically not in geographical locations that I want to live in. I don't
like San Francisco nor Silicon Valley very much. Not crazy about the East
Coast. Don't care to work in academia.
I couldn't be happy doing that. I want to live wherever I want to live.
In fact, I'm much more tempted to want to work for Microsoft (perhaps on the
Javascript team!) than for a LISP vendor.
Imagine the difference a LISP programmer could make to the world at
Microsoft!!
If Microsoft were in Southern California, I might do that; but I'm not sure
how happy I'd be in Redmond! I'm in favor of blooming where one is planted.
I love the surfing here. The mountain biking. These things mean a great
deal to me. Perhaps even more than Microsoft or LISP!
In order for me to live where I want, I must be as mainstream and marketable
as humanly possible.
Your goal is LISP employment. Mine is to be able to go to any major city in
the world and be found valuable and employable by having a pratical, in
demand skill set.
And my dream is to live to see a day when that practical skill set can be
LISP.
> Give yourself a break. Come over to Lisp, and let JavaScript be just
> another piece of software that needs to be interfaced to. You'll be
> much happier.
I see that you are from Franz. I am always willing to talk! (I'm
pragmatic, remember?)
If Franz wants to work on a ubiquitous LISP, I'd be happy to talk with
Franz! (It never hurts to talk...)
Andre van Meulebrouck
"Alain Picard" <apicard+die...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:86lm43z...@gondolin.local.net...
> Duane Rettig <du...@franz.com> writes:
> What is great is that once you start using Lisp at work, even when you
work
> on "non lispy" problems (i.e. things you could equally well do in
"standard"
> languages), life is still _so_ much better/cleaner/simpler. And pretty
soon,
> the people around you stop seeing lisp as a niche language and start
accepting
> it as "a programming language".
Sorry to be a contrarian, but...
If given a choice of doing object oriented Javascript programming versus
procedural LISP (i.e. a LISP system that doesn't have an object system); I'd
opt for Javascript!
There are so many ways in which LISP is being surpassed and falling behind.
I have often been in the situation where I could get an employer to use LISP
if I had wanted to. Why didn't I? Because the database connectivity and
interfacing with other real world aspects of systems just wasn't there. And
partly because the programming expertise wasn't there to read LISP code
(others have to maintain your code while you're gone).
> Stop the Lisp bigotry now! :-)
From the other side of the fence, I like to suggest ending LISP snobbery!
That hurts in LISP's acceptance too.
There is a lot about these issues that cuts both ways.
Sometimes I think if I had to wager on the conventional side becoming more
palatable and LISP-like versus the LISP side becoming more practical,
applied, real world, and viable; I'd wager on the conventional side of the
fence.
No one wants to get fired for suggesting a solution that turns out to be
problematic. People often go with Microsoft for that reason: it's not as
elegant as LISP but they are confident they can get the system working and
have the support they need.
That's the problem to be solved!
At one time the Mac was far better than Windows. IMO, that is no more.
And VB was a nightmare; but now it really is getting much better.
This was another tenant of my paper: it's possible for the ubiquitous thing
to surpass superior technologies by virtue of accumulating huge amounts of
usage data and responding to them incrementally.
Erik Naggum
| There are so many ways in which LISP is being surpassed and falling behind.
That is a amazingly meaningless sentence.
Andre van Meulebrouck
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:32458396...@naggum.no...
> * Andre van Meulebrouck
> | I want to be extremely mainstream
> :
> | I'm interested in solutions for the masses.
>
> There are two ways to do this. The first is to become indistinguishable
> from everything else so the masses pick you at random and generally by
> mistake.
You lost me there. I have no idea what you're talking about.
> The second is to stand out and let the masses come to you.
Absolutely not; in fact that sounds very arrogant.
The idea you're espousing typically goes like this:
Build a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door.
I don't think it works like that at all!
You must go OUT to the market rather than thinking the market will come to
you!
You must find out where they live and live there too.
You must find out what the market place wants and provide it; and provide it
better than anyone else is providing it.
You must have a willingness to serve rather than a desire to work with cool
technology (the latter is icing on the cake if you can get it).
You must convince customers you are there when they need you; and you are
there in force with staying power so that they don't need to worry about you
going out of business and leaving them high and dry.
You don't want to STAND OUT; you want to FIT IN, GET ON BOARD, and play ball
with the neighborhood kids.
You do not want to be a LISP snob or a prima Dona!
> The
> first option appears to be irrelevant. That must mean you believe you
can
> make the masses come your way. If you believe this, you should realize
> that it does not matter what the "mainstream" and the masses are
/today/,
> because you can change that. Any position between these two is failure.
How about this:
1) Determine what the juggernaut is.
2) Climb on board and ride the juggernaut rather than being crushed by it.
3) Try steering the juggernaut from inside the juggernaut rather than from
outside.
Paolo Amoroso
<vanm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good. (For
> instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression based:
> this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope of
Such attempts were made, probably at the right time. Erik Naggum mentioned
here his efforts with SGML.
> Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP more
> widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
What do you mean by research and development? A number of projects are
working on usable libraries and tools.
Harald Hanche-Olsen
| My turn! Suppose we want to mutate a variable from an outer scope:
|
| Python 2.2b2 (#1, Nov 21 2001, 14:42:03)
| [GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-81)] on linux2
| Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
| >>> def bar(x):
| ... def acc(y):
| ... x += y # assignment is a "statement" so can't go in a lambda
| ... return x
| ... return acc
| ...
| >>> qux = bar(0)
| >>> qux(0)
| Traceback (most recent call last):
| File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
| File "<stdin>", line 3, in acc
| UnboundLocalError: local variable 'x' referenced before assignment
|
| Oops! No can do. This bites. Certainly it bites me, hard and more
| often than I'd like.
It bites because you try to write lisp code in python. The python way
is to use classes for this sort of thing:
>>> class snake:
... def __init__(self,n):
... self.n=n
... def feed(self,n):
... self.n+=n
... return self.n
...
>>> python=snake(50)
>>> python.feed(5)
55
>>> boa=snake(30)
>>> boa.feed(5)
35
>>> python.feed(15)
70
>>>
Class methods get around the two (or three) namespaces problems
because when called, they automagically receive the object as the
first argument ("self" in the above example), which gives you access
to the object's own namespace.
I find this easy and intuitive, though not by any stretch of the
imagination up to the power of CLOS, of course.
Erik Naggum
| You lost me there. I have no idea what you're talking about.
I find it rather alarming that you first realize this but then blithely
assume that you understood my second point, which was evidently even more
lost on you than the first.
| You don't want to STAND OUT; you want to FIT IN, GET ON BOARD, and play
| ball with the neighborhood kids.
|
| You do not want to be a LISP snob or a prima Dona!
I now realize that you have been hurt in some way that is orthogonal to
any programming language issues and that your personal fear of being
different is underlying your decisions. I have absolutely no such fear
and I cannot even relate to the experience. Life is not some democratic
experiment where people agree to go and die if they are voted down, and
neither is it the converse: You do not tell other people to go and die if
they disagree with you. But this will probably also be lost on you, given
the frantic tone of your response, so I have no intention of changing your
mind on this. (Which reminds me that I should finish that response to
Pascal Costanza...)
Anyway, who else have succeeded, using your proposed methodology of
letting somebody else take all your important decisions?
Fred Gilham
> If given a choice of doing object oriented Javascript programming
> versus procedural LISP (i.e. a LISP system that doesn't have an
> object system); I'd opt for Javascript!
Well, I think this is a misconception you have about Lisp. Lisp is
inherently object-oriented, but not in an explicit way. Everything in
Lisp is an object in that everything in Lisp is tagged, so Lisp knows
what functions are applicable to the object.
* (string= "42" 42)
Type-error in KERNEL::OBJECT-NOT-TYPE-ERROR-HANDLER:
42 is not of type (OR BASE-STRING SYMBOL BASE-CHAR)
* (= 42 "42")
Argument X is not a NUMBER: "42".
Lisp knows that the data object 42 is a number and not something that
you can usefully compare for equality with a string, and vice versa.
Thus Lisp implements the most fundamental idea in object-oriented
programming: abstract data types and the operations which apply to
them. (Note, for example, that one would feel pretty foolish
encapsulating something without providing the ability to operate on
it.)
Historically Lisp has tended to shed object systems like a cat sheds
fur. Flavors, LOOPS, CLOS and Garnet's KR are just a few one might
have encountered. Many Lisp textbooks create small but functional
object systems as a matter of course. At the Lisp conference one of
the tutorial presenters gave an example of something he called
`environments' which was simply a C++ or Java style object system
including public and private members. He had written this with a few
pages of Lisp macrology.
The point of this is that object-oriented programming is something
Lisp does naturally. You can whip up your own object system in a page
of code. Lisp can also adopt to any particular style of object
oriented programming someone desires. For example, Flavors is a
message-passing OO system, but CLOS uses generic functions. CLOS uses
classes and instances, but Garnet/KR uses a prototype-instance system.
CLOS even institutionalizes this kind of polymorphism (using the term
in the general sense) with its Meta-Object Protocol.
--
Fred Gilham gil...@csl.sri.com
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: the right not to reproduce, no matter what else
you do. PLANNED PARENTHOOD: an organization that helps you plan to
avoid becoming a parent.
Thomas F. Burdick
> "Duane Rettig" <du...@franz.com> wrote:
>
> > What use of Lisp are you making,
>
> Using what I've learned from my experience in LISP and applying it to
> whatever I am doing in whatever kind of tools I'm being asked to used in the
> most mainstream situations I can possibly work in. That is my challenge!
[...]
> I feel that if what I learned from LISP can only be applied by using LISP
> itself; then I do not understand LISP at all! My knowledge of LISP would
> not be applied enough to make me happy.
[...]
> But a LISP job using LISP itself; I just can't imagine that (though I have
> done it in the past here and there). I don't want to do that again until
> LISP becomes ubiquitous. My pragmatic side would never hear of it! My
> philosophy of the ubiquitous would never allow it. That for me would indeed
> be selling out.
>
> LISP burned far too many people in varying degrees due to the vagaries of
> the LISP market. Can't you possibly imagine why some people might be a
> little gun shy of LISP?
>
> Until LISP becomes ubiquitous I must remain on the mainstream side of the
> fence and work towards the LISP side of the fence; not the reverse.
This whole thread, but these bits of this reply in particular, really
remind me of a part of a speech by James P. Cannon that I read
recently. He's specifically talking about revolutionists and tired
once-revolutionsts in the Socialist Workers Party in mid-century US,
but the point he makes applies to any partisan in any struggle:
The surest way to lose one's fighting faith is to succumb to one's
immediate environment; to see things only as they are and not as
they are changing and must change; to see only what is before one's
eyes and imagine that it is permanent. That is the cursed fate of
the trade unionist who separates himself from the revolutionary
party. In normal times, the trade union, by its very nature, is a
culture-broth of opportunism. No trade unionist, overwhelmed by the
petty concerns and limited aims of the day, can retain his vision of
the larger issues and the will to fight for them without the party.
The revolutionary party can make mistakes, and has made them, but it
is never wrong in the fight against grievance-mongers who try to
blame the party for their own weaknesses, for their tiredness, their
lack of vision, their impulse to quit and to capitulate. The party
is not wrong now when it calls this tendency by its right name.
People often act differently as individuals, and give different
explanations for their actions, than when they act and speak as
groups. When an individual gets tired and wants to quit, he usually
says he is tired and he quits; or he just drops out without saying
anything at all, and that's all there is to it. That has been
happening in our international movement for 100 years.
But when the same kind of people decide as a group to get out of the
line of fire by getting out of the party, they need the cover of a
faction and a "political" rationalization. Any "political"
explanation will do, and in any case it is pretty certain to be a
phony explanation. That also has been going on for about 100 years.
Naturally, it's not vital to combat the equivalent tendancy in a
programming-language community -- we're not talking about the future
of mankind here -- but I think the descriptive analysis works here as
well.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick
> On 01 Nov 2002 12:04:36 -0800, Fred Gilham <gil...@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
> [...]
> > He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
> > was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
> > dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
>
> Hmmm... is he working on an ArcMachine?
That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a 9-volt
battery, and not wall voltage...
Will Deakin
> Paolo Amoroso writes:
> >On 01 Nov 2002 12:04:36 -0800, Fred Gilham
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Another speaker was Richard Greenblatt of MIT & LIM fame. Let me
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>He started off on what I considered the wrong foot by saying that CLOS
> >>was a bad idea because it had multiple inheritance and multiple
> >>dispatch, and Lisp would be better off with something more like the
> >
> >Hmmm... is he working on an ArcMachine?
> That sounds dangerous! Hopefully if he is, it's powered by a 9-volt
> battery, and not wall voltage...
Even that sounds risky -- couple of gerbils and a rubber band sounds
more like what is needed?
;)w
Duane Rettig
> "Duane Rettig" <du...@franz.com> wrote in message
> news:4wunnh...@beta.franz.com...
> > "Andre van Meulebrouck" <vanm...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > > I never suggested that Javascript's proximity to LISP should be cause for
> > > declaring a premature victory and resting on laurels! Rather it should
> > > encourage the building of bridges from the LISP side in order to meet
> > > conventional languages half way.
> >
> > This is being done, without abdicating Lisp itself.
>
> As I made clear in both my paper and presentation; I don't want to see LISP
> give up its essence in the name of compromise.
As I stated at the beginning of my response, I didn't see your talk, nor
have I yet read your paper. I am responding _only_ to the responses you
have been giving in this thread, and nothing else.
> However, I don't know what you would point to as efforts on the LISP side to
> bridge the gap to the conventional world, so I can't comment further.
From this response and other responses previously, below, and in other
threads, it is obvious that you have had little contact with the Lisp
world for many years (I notice you even spell it the old way - LISP instead
of Lisp, which is no big deal, but telling).
> > Instead, we build
> > bridges between Lisp and other languages, thus making it a great
> connection
> > glue even in areas where other languages have found a niche.
>
> I'm happy to hear that, but haven't seen anything yet that I'd consider very
> ubiquitous.
You haven't been looking in the right places. A man happened upon another
man one night under a street light, and the latter was obviously looking
for something. The former asked him what he was looking for, and the latter
said "My coat. I dropped it over there" (pointing into a dark ally). The
first man was incredulous, asking "If you lost it there, then why are you
looking for it here?", to which the second man replied "It's lighter here."
> > > It was my intention to focus on future wins that are still possible
> rather
> > > than lamenting lost opportunities; hence my upbeat and optimistic tone.
> >
> > As was pointed out by another poster, this sentence doesn't ring true, due
> > to the smashing of the optimism that you do so well in the next
> (incorrect)
> > sentence:
>
> I fail to see how those are not reconciled.
>
> Some battles have been lost. Some can still be won. I wanted to focus on
> the latter rather than the former.
You view markets as battles won or lost. You have the wrong analogy.
> > > However, I believe the LISP community has failed very badly at marketing
> > > LISP and many lost opportunities are now gone, perhaps for good.
> >
> > How does a language, which has no hardware coattails to ride behind like
> > C/C++, but which supports four or five commercial vendors and at least
> > as many free/opensource vendors, fail badly at marketing? Does it need
> > 100% of all markets to be sucessful?
>
> I found the above a bit obtuse to parse, but assuming I'm following you...
Probably the reason why it seems obtuse to you is because you've been out
of the Lisp industry for so long. You should take another look.
> LISP should not need hardware coattails. I don't get that at all. LISP
> should be able to run on stock hardware. The hardware is out there, it's
> cheap, it's plentiful, it's powerful enough. Compiler technology is awesome
> these days. What's the problem?
Lisp does run on almost all stock hardware. What's the problem?
> > > (For
> > > instance, XML is here to stay but it should have been s-expression
> based:
> > > this was a missed opportunity for which I don't think there is much hope
> of
> > > an antidote in the foreseeable future due to momentum.)
> >
> > Lisp is gracious to allow XML to languish in its niche, and to help it
> along
> > by providing tools for working with and generating XML.
>
> Why didn't LISP lead the way in the first place so that we never had to see
> XML? Or HTML?
This is interesting. I remember a game we used to play without really
thinking about it as kids, and my own children played it as they were
growing up. I don't think it had a name, but its essence was pure
competition - Two children would agree on a target to which to race, and
they would race. Then, the loser would get huffy, and find a target very
close to him/her, and say "ok, race you to <the new target>". Of course that
child would win that race. The game became a series of targets chosen to
guarantee success.
So of course, XML got to its target, because that's where it was headed.
> > > If my talk was to be condensed into an anecdote or characterization,
> perhaps
> > > it should be this: "repetition is the mother of learning"; which was my
> > > recurring theme. In order to grow a technology it needs to learn, to
> learn
> > > it needs lots of repetition; to get that repetition there must be a lot
> of
> > > users, to get those users you must be widespread.
> >
> > So what is it that you are repeating? What, for example, is JavaScript
> > learning?
>
> Usage data by users. Lots of users, using lots of machines, using lots of s
> oftware to amass huge volumes of real world experience data.
>
> The kind of data you cannot get by doing all the upfront thinking you can in
> a lab.
>
> Finding out the types of things you missed in the lab or didn't think of or
> couldn't even imagine.
>
> It's like planning a trip: at some point you must just go and learn by
> doing. There are limits to how much you can plan or even imagine about what
> you'll encounter along the way.
>
> Testers and users are wonderful. The more the merrier.
These are all fine and wonderful, and the Lisp world is doing this.
Of course, you missed much of the good stuff at the conference, since you
only stayed for one day. But I can understand that; a conference is
expensive. However, you can also see a lot of what is happening by looking
at a few websites, including ours, for free and without driving too far.
> > > Personally, I would like to see the LISP community impose on itself a
> > > moratorium on research and development in order to focus on making LISP
> more
> > > widespread as the primary goal (at least for the shortrun).
> >
> > What R&D is it that you think is taking Lisp from its primary goal?
>
> I'm answering this for the 3rd time, so I'll be brief. I'd like to see
> applied R&D supplant more theoretical R&D until better financial stability
> is arrived at. Then, more esoteric directions are okay to pursue once
> again.
Unfortunately, you haven't answered my question once. Precisely _what_
R&D are you talking about? I want specific cases. If you have none,
then you have no point to make.
> > > With all the minds in the LISP community, LISP can't find a better
> market
> > > than it has?
> >
> > The world is Lisp's market. My wife and I just watched our DVD of a James
> > Bond video again, and its title says it all - apparently, "The World is
> > Not Enough".
>
> ???
OK, since you didn't get it, Lisp has been all over the world of late, and
even the world is not enough; Lisp has indeed been sent into space. A better
market than "the world and beyond" one cannot find.
> > > I'm all in favor of R&D, but I think that's a luxury after the basics
> have
> > > been accomplished and the community has some degree of financial health;
> > > otherwise it's moot! Moreover, there would be more money for R&D if
> LISP
> > > focused on trying to be of service to the world at large (thereby
> gathering
> > > more of a grass roots following). It's all a matter of getting
> priorities
> > > straight!
> >
> > Whose budget are you looking at? My question above still stands, along
> with
> > another: What R&D is being squandered away by the Lisp community? And
> > whose financial health would removing such R&D thus improve?
>
> I think pondering estorery when your house is burning down is not a good
> idea.
I don't know estorery; I assume you mean esoterica. What esoterica are we
pondering? Specifically?
> I think getting your house in order should be a higher priority.
>
> > > Science is not alleviated from marketing: if you build a better mouse
> trap,
> > > it is your job to explain why it is advantageous. LISP has much to
> offer,
> > > but will it ever be properly offered? If we do our part to make it
> > > accessible and it still isn't accepted; at least we will have done our
> part.
> >
> > What part have you been doing?
>
> Did you attend my talk???
As I stated at the beginning of my response, I didn't see your talk. I
am responding _only_ to the responses you have been giving in this thread,
and nothing else.
> Writing, education, participation in fixing bugs and suggesting
> improvements, participating in R&D, beta testing. At some point I want to
> participate more closely with the actual standards process rather than going
> through intermediaries.
But not in the Lisp community, right? I have no problem with this, nor do
I have any problem with you making improvements to other communities in the
direction of Lisp. My only gripe is that you made statements in your post
about the Lisp community that were clearly out of sync with reality.
> Every day I program in conventional languages I'm working towards the goals
> mentioned above (which you are asking me about); as long as I do it in a
> LISP style rather than a conventional style. What good is theory if it
> isn't applied? What good is LISP if it's not part of your essence? If it's
> part of your essence, you don't have to have a LISP job. You can breathe
> LISP into the conventional world, everywhere you go, in everything you do.
> That is actually much more interesting to me than having a classical LISP
> job!
No problem here. Enjoy yourself. But don't trash the Lisp community by
making statements about it that are many years out of date.
> The world can deprive me of LISP tools; but it can never deprive me of the
> concepts I've taken from it. Hence, that is ultimate LISP job! That is the
> ultimate LISP freedom!
Agreed.
> > What use of Lisp are you making,
>
> Using what I've learned from my experience in LISP and applying it to
> whatever I am doing in whatever kind of tools I'm being asked to used in the
> most mainstream situations I can possibly work in. That is my challenge!
>
> Taking what I've learned from Lambda Calculus, combinators, theory, LISP,
> etc.; then applying that to the most mundane situations the world has to
> offer, and making a direct difference that can be immediately seen in font
> line applications that are as widely deployed in the work-a-day world as I
> can possibly get.
>
> That gives me great satisifcation from seeing even the most esoteric ideas
> applied to every day life to make life better for the greatest number of
> average people as possible. I'm very interested in the plight of the
> working stiff and the average joe on the street. If you can't make a
> difference to them, what good are your tools???
All well and good.
> I feel that if what I learned from LISP can only be applied by using LISP
> itself; then I do not understand LISP at all! My knowledge of LISP would
> not be applied enough to make me happy.
That is your choice and preference.
> I would much prefer to apply LISP by writing a LISP interpreter inside a
> conventional application than to actually use LISP from a LISP vendor. I'd
> learn a great deal more by having to implement the LISP I use rather than
> using a LISP someone else wrote.
Again, your choice. Many people do, enough so that Philip Greenspun codified
it into his "Tenth rule of programming"...
> If given a choice of M*A*S*H style real world, front line programming; or
> R&D LISP programming, I might actually prefer, and be happier, in the former
> situation; and might not be able to find a satisfying home in the later.
You have mentioned R&D many times, and have not given any examples. It's
almost as if you beleive that Lisp is an academic language only, with no
commercial inroads.
> The challenge I'm interested in is applying theory to the mundane rather
> than into R&D enclaves.
>
> > and how does
> > promulgating JavaScript count as "making Lisp acceptable"?
>
> Did you attend my talk or read my paper? It's all explained in there
> already.
As I stated at the beginning of my response, I didn't see your talk, nor
have I yet read your paper. I am responding _only_ to the responses you
have been giving in this thread, and nothing else.
What I get from your posts is that you believe that Lisp is a concept, not
a language. OK, it is a concept, and you are free and encouraged to take
the Lisp gestalt out into the rest of the language world (indeed, that is
what is happening). But Lisp is in fact a real language, used in real
applications, for real purposes. It makes a few people a lot of money,
some people enough money, and it serves as an excellent hobby for those
who are into that. Lisp is not R&D.
> My bottom line, non-negotiable starting point is that I only want to use the
> most ubiquitous tools that are available (and that is never LISP, at least
> not yet); and to be as recession proof as possible, and to be as mainstream
> as possible.
Lisp will never be as ubiquitous as you desire. You've made your position
and choice clear.
> From that starting point, I want to apply LISP techniques and concepts (if
> not LISP itself) to those situations. That is what I find interesting.
You've made that clear.
> > Well, I just saw it as a simple dig. Perhaps you are more sensitive than
> you
> > think. "Methinks thou doest protest too much" - you did make yourself
> > public by giving a talk.
>
> Giving a public talk means I want my topic to be in the limelight, not me!
> I never wanted to be the topic in a personal way. Giving a public talk
> should not avail me to pot shots and target practise. If it does; I'm not
> interested. I have no interest in a situation with that level of
> incivility. I feel we have an obligation to serve. But if being of service
> means being a target; I no longer feel any obligation to serve (at least not
> in that type of venue). There is a difference in being a servant and being
> an abused toadie.
Welcome to the real world.
> I do not think asking people to maintain impersonality is too much to ask.
No, it's never too much to ask. Whether you get what you ask for, however...
> In general I believe incivility is rampant in society; and I don't think
> that's a good thing.
Maintaining civility, especially on the internet, includes graciously
accepting a dig without taking offense. You have control over how you
respond and thus contribute to the civility of the internet society.
> > > Many of us are tired of subsidizing LISP as volunteers and would like
> LISP
> > > to start subsidizing us for a change. We all have our limits as to how
> much
> > > we are willing to do.
> >
> > Volunteering to do Lisp work is admirable, and if you enjoy it as a hobby,
> > that's fine too. But here you are obviously either burnt out on doing
> either
> > of these things,
>
> I'm overworked, to be sure; it's part of the turf, but I do not mind that
> part so much.
>
> The only part I do mind is personal attacks.
I don't feel attacked. Do you?
> I will happily march through hell for anyone that is even half way
> reasonable to me; but if you wish to put your finger in my eye; that's when
> we're going to have problems. I have very little patience for that; but
> infinite patience otherwise (even for honest mistakes).
>
> > and so you should progress to the next step, which is to
> > actually program Lisp for _money_. That will take the tiredness right out
> > of you. :-)
>
> For writing LISP articles, sure. Writing about combinators, sure. LISP
> style programming in Javascript, and DHTML absolutely.
>
> But a LISP job using LISP itself; I just can't imagine that (though I have
> done it in the past here and there). I don't want to do that again until
> LISP becomes ubiquitous. My pragmatic side would never hear of it! My
> philosophy of the ubiquitous would never allow it. That for me would indeed
> be selling out.
You've made yourself clear.
> LISP burned far too many people in varying degrees due to the vagaries of
> the LISP market. Can't you possibly imagine why some people might be a
> little gun shy of LISP?
No, Lisp got burned by the AI collapse. People are gun-shy, and even
aggressively antagonistic, because the AI hype of the 80s caused many
managers to sink billions of dollars into the AI industry, which ended up
not delivering all that it had promised in the timeframe it had promised it.
Because Lisp was so closely tied to AI, it was dragged down with AI when the
AI Winter occurred in the 90s. Lisp is just now on its way back out of that
winter.
> Until LISP becomes ubiquitous I must remain on the mainstream side of the
> fence and work towards the LISP side of the fence; not the reverse.
Your choice.
> I also have little faith in the world, which I see as a house of cards. I'm
> surprised it stays together as well as it does! Part of my philosophy of
> the ubiquitous is to be as survivable as humanly possible.
Interesting philosophy. I'm glad I don't adhere to it.
> If war and recession cause societal collapse; all that is estoeric will be
> for naught. It must remain in moth balls for a better day. R&D thrives on
> the fat of society!
>
> But all that is practical will survive. That is where I want to be!
This is too funny. Where will JavaScript be if society collapses?
> > > Many of us have jobs and responsibilities; and family and loved ones
> > > desiring our time, money, and attention.
> >
> > And when your job is Lisp, life becomes great. (no smiley here, I'm dead
> > serious).
>
> If that is the case for you I am happy for you.
>
> We need you people on the LISP side of the fence.
>
> But we all march to a different drum; I must remain on the other side of the
> fence until the two sides meet in the middle.
>
> Please help me tear down the wall in between!
It is really a half-silvered morror. You only see the wall from your side.
From the lisp side, there are connections to many other languages.
> > Now, some others may respond something like "But it's hard to
> > get a Lisp job!", or even, "It's _impossible_ to get a Lisp job!". To
> > those who say it's hard, I say "yes, good things in life are sometimes
> > hard". And to those who would dare say it's impossible, I say "OK, have
> > it your way" (in other words, if as a manager I were hiring you, I would
> > look for a "can do" attitude, and I simply don't see that in such a
> > statement).
>
> Actually it's not hard to find LISP jobs (I've turned down quite a few
> myself); but one thing you must give up to get a LISP job is geographical
> preference.
>
> You must follow the LISP jobs to wherever they are geographically. And they
> are typically not in geographical locations that I want to live in. I don't
> like San Francisco nor Silicon Valley very much. Not crazy about the East
> Coast. Don't care to work in academia.
>
> I couldn't be happy doing that. I want to live wherever I want to live.
>
> In fact, I'm much more tempted to want to work for Microsoft (perhaps on the
> Javascript team!) than for a LISP vendor.
>
> Imagine the difference a LISP programmer could make to the world at
> Microsoft!!
>
> If Microsoft were in Southern California, I might do that; but I'm not sure
> how happy I'd be in Redmond! I'm in favor of blooming where one is planted.
> I love the surfing here. The mountain biking. These things mean a great
> deal to me. Perhaps even more than Microsoft or LISP!
Telecommuting is a possibility nowadays. But in order to tellecommute in
a Lisp job, you must be up-to-date on Lisp technology. You won't get that
by programming Javascript.
> In order for me to live where I want, I must be as mainstream and marketable
> as humanly possible.
>
> Your goal is LISP employment. Mine is to be able to go to any major city in
> the world and be found valuable and employable by having a pratical, in
> demand skill set.
> And my dream is to live to see a day when that practical skill set can be
> LISP.
>
> > Give yourself a break. Come over to Lisp, and let JavaScript be just
> > another piece of software that needs to be interfaced to. You'll be
> > much happier.
>
> I see that you are from Franz. I am always willing to talk! (I'm
> pragmatic, remember?)
>
> If Franz wants to work on a ubiquitous LISP, I'd be happy to talk with
> Franz! (It never hurts to talk...)
Sure. We'd gladly sell you our ubiquitous Lisp. Check out our website,
and download a trial version.
--
Duane Rettig du...@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182