OK, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. If you're really planning to use Lisp and get help from this group you should do at least three things:
1. Use it! Just use it. Stop reading books and posting to c.l.l and instead start with some project. Do whatever you think is useful (maybe check CLiki first so you don't implement something for the third time). Then, when you feel lost and don't know how to proceed come back with precise questions and everybody including me will be happy to help.
2. If you have a question, ask the question - that's enough. Be as clear as possible and stay on topic. Don't explain to us why Lisp is bad and why you can't use it and what should be changed to make it better. We know that Lisp sucks, that's why we're here... :)
3. If you think something should be changed don't post complaints and _demand_ that it should be changed. Either change it yourself or pay someone to do it. Or prepare a convincing proposal and try to find some implementors to agree on it. But don't expect anyone to do your work just because you cry - that's not how Usenet works. (And the same applies to the real world.)
> First of all, maybe there is some misunderstanding going on. In this > article where I thanked the parent for his post(in this thread), I was > not being ironic. I was serious:
Jeez, your social IQ is lower than mine. This is good news, the National Bureau of Standards can stop bothering me when they need to calibrate their assholometer. Of course your article was sincere. Including the flaming "The signal to noise ratio is really low here."
Homework for tonight: explain why that is a firebomb.
>>told to go fuck themselves. Don't pretend you are not a variable in this >>equation. Others are getting help where you are getting flamed. This is >>not rocket science, which is not to say socializing well is easier than >>rocket science.
> Thanks for the reminder, if you can tell me where I went wrong it > would be even better. Socializing is not easy, like in technical > questions I'm thankful for all that are willing to help.
Ok, now that the horror at the thought of me as an expert on socialization has subsided, it occurs to me that in fact a fellow social cripple will be a better guide than one who does it naturally:
Just read what you write after you write it and before you send it. And post more often, so you learn faster.
btw, Rainer's answer should to my mind have been parsed as "this is what I know having done a whole lot of Lisp programming and having a solid familiarity with InterLisp, and that experience cannot be reduced to a sentence or I would." It is a commonplace rhetorical device. That's how I took it, anyway, and if I am right, whining about not getting a quicky answer obviously misses the message badly.
--
kenny tilton clinisys, inc http://www.tilton-technology.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------- "This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." -- Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama
thelif...@gmx.net (thelifter) writes: > Jock Cooper <jo...@mail.com> wrote in message > <news:m31xuovb8l.fsf@jcooper02.sagepub.com>... > > people getting cancer from smoking. But it is still this indirect > > experience which allows you to make a conclusion.
> Exactly my point!
Then you missed the original point AND my point. You said conclusions were totally independent of experience. My point is that experience doesn't have to be your personal one to be used to draw a conclusion. But it's still experience being used to draw a conclusion.
If conclusions were totally indepenendent of experience then for your example you would have to decide not to smoke or to wear a seat belt with *no* prior knowledge that smoking causes cancer or having an accident without a seat belt is much worse than with. In fact you'd have to have no knowledge of any kind about what happens when you smoke a cigarette or ride in a car - this knowledge would have been gained by experience of some kind.
Edi Weitz <e...@agharta.de> wrote in message <news:8765k0w9ud.fsf@bird.agharta.de>... > OK, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. If you're really planning to > use Lisp and get help from this group you should do at least three > things:
Oh, the benefit of doubt. I thought this was a given. Well, it seems I was wrong. Shall I thank you for granting it to me?
> 1. Use it! Just use it. Stop reading books and posting to c.l.l and
The problem is, I'm not happy with the existing implementations. This may sound arrogant, but it is what I think. I'm also kind of afraid to work into a dead-end. That's why I like to study things BEFORE I start implementing. For a while I thought that Scheme was the solution, until the recent thread "why some people think that scheme is not a lisp" convinced me otherwise. The nice thing about scheme is that there are some implementations that work very well with Java, which is a very big plus if you are doing web-related stuff.
Posting ideas is the way I have found to contribute. You may not agree with my ideas, that's ok. I don't have the knowledge or time to implement most of them myself. Lack of knowledge is also a reason why I'm mostly still studying(in the little spare time I have).
I will start a web-related project soon. I'm thinking about using CLISP, but I already know some drawbacks, e.g. if I need to program database access one day, I know it will not be easy, at least not as easy as from Java, where it is really a trivial task.
Don't get me wrong. I really think that Lisp is a great language, maybe the best around. But I think it misses in some practical issues. I will say it once again: take CL for example. It is great and powerful and at the sime time hard to implement. If you need an implementation that works well together with Java you won't find one.
thelifter wrote: > The problem is, I'm not happy with the existing implementations. This > may sound arrogant, but it is what I think. I'm also kind of afraid to > work into a dead-end. That's why I like to study things BEFORE I start > implementing. For a while I thought that Scheme was the solution, > until the recent thread "why some people think that scheme is not a > lisp" convinced me otherwise. The nice thing about scheme is that > there are some implementations that work very well with Java, which is > a very big plus if you are doing web-related stuff.
One result of the discussion was that Scheme doesn't mandate a "lispy" implementation. However, there are Scheme implementations that are quite lispy due to their specific extensions. I am not quite sure, but SISC seems to be one of those.
> I will start a web-related project soon. I'm thinking about using > CLISP, but I already know some drawbacks, e.g. if I need to program > database access one day, I know it will not be easy, at least not as > easy as from Java, where it is really a trivial task.
> Don't get me wrong. I really think that Lisp is a great language, > maybe the best around. But I think it misses in some practical issues. > I will say it once again: take CL for example. It is great and > powerful and at the sime time hard to implement. If you need an > implementation that works well together with Java you won't find one.
I can relate to your feelings of despair, but at the same time I think that your approach is not very effective.
Here is a possible approach:
1. Type the search words "java lisp" into Google.
The fourth result is a posting to a mailing list that discusses Java/Lisp integration. They mention Lijos as one solution. Go to that site and see if it suits your needs.
2. Type the search words "java lisp lijos" into Google.
The first link on that page that mentions another approach for Lisp/Java integration is for JACOL. Go to that site and find out that they even provide a discussion about some of the other alternatives.
-- Pascal Costanza University of Bonn mailto:costa...@web.de Institute of Computer Science III http://www.pascalcostanza.de Römerstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
thelifter writes: > powerful and at the sime time hard to implement. If you need an > implementation that works well together with Java you won't find one.
Pascal Costanza <costa...@web.de> writes: > One result of the discussion was that Scheme doesn't mandate a "lispy" > implementation. However, there are Scheme implementations that are quite > lispy due to their specific extensions. I am not quite sure, but SISC > seems to be one of those.
I would count Guile as such a Scheme, first because of a lot of practical extensions (arrays, etc.), second because of its OO-system GOOPS which is derived from TinyClos. Of course, if you are using such a Scheme the question arises why you should not use the better and much more stable Common Lisp. And if you do not really depend on tight C-Guile integration you should switch. This is how I came to CL.
"thelifter" wrote: > > 1. Use it! Just use it. Stop reading books and posting to c.l.l and
> The problem is, I'm not happy with the existing implementations. This > may sound arrogant, but it is what I think.
Tough. I'm not happy with the existing implementations of *any* language, but I still seem to manage to get some work done using computers. So do lots of other people. What's so hard?
> I'm also kind of afraid to > work into a dead-end. That's why I like to study things BEFORE I start > implementing. For a while I thought that Scheme was the solution, > until the recent thread "why some people think that scheme is not a > lisp" convinced me otherwise.
What about that thread convinced you otherwise? It seemed to me to be an entirely philosophical thread. Are you choosing a language on the basis of its philosophical soundness, or of its practical technical capabilities?
> The nice thing about scheme is that > there are some implementations that work very well with Java, which is > a very big plus if you are doing web-related stuff.
If you need good interworking with Java, and there are Scheme implementations that have that, and there are no CL implementations that have that, then go and use Scheme. Do you want to get whatever-it-is done, or do you just want to complain?
> Posting ideas is the way I have found to contribute. You may not agree > with my ideas, that's ok. I don't have the knowledge or time to > implement most of them myself. Lack of knowledge is also a reason why > I'm mostly still studying(in the little spare time I have).
Lack of knowledge is, I'm afraid, also the reason why posting your ideas is not really a contribution.
> I will start a web-related project soon. I'm thinking about using > CLISP, but I already know some drawbacks, e.g. if I need to program > database access one day, I know it will not be easy, at least not as > easy as from Java, where it is really a trivial task.
> Don't get me wrong. I really think that Lisp is a great language, > maybe the best around. But I think it misses in some practical issues. > I will say it once again: take CL for example. It is great and > powerful and at the sime time hard to implement. If you need an > implementation that works well together with Java you won't find one.
If that is true, then it will not get any better as a result of you saying in c.l.l how deficient Lisp is in practical issues. Nor will it get any better as a result of you saying in c.l.l how Lisp ought to be redesigned to be more modular. Fine words, as the saying goes, butter no parsnips. Write some code, or do some *serious* design work and find people who want to follow your design, or put in some money. The chances of any other course of action improving the state of things are essentially zero.
+--------------- | I will start a web-related project soon. I'm thinking about using | CLISP, but I already know some drawbacks, e.g. if I need to program | database access one day, I know it will not be easy, at least not as | easy as from Java, where it is really a trivial task. +---------------
Hey, dude, it's pretty trivial from Common Lisp, too!! If you're using PostgreSQL, just grab Eric Marsden's "pg.lisp" from <URL:http://www.chez.com/emarsden/downloads/> and you can write stuff like this:
> (with-pg-connection (conn "my_data" "www") (let* ((query "SELECT first, last, email FROM contact LIMIT 4") (result (pg-exec conn query))) (pg-result result :tuples)))
* thelifter wrote: > Don't get me wrong. I really think that Lisp is a great language, > maybe the best around. But I think it misses in some practical issues. > I will say it once again: take CL for example. It is great and > powerful and at the sime time hard to implement. If you need an > implementation that works well together with Java you won't find > one.
Do you actually think CL is harder to implement than Java? Or, if you stop to actually *think* about it, do you think that Java implementations have had hundreds as times as much effort thrown at it than CL has ever had? If Sun or IBM had decided to put the effort they have put into Java implementations and libraries over the last 8 years into CL implementations and libraries, don't you think they might have come with something pretty good?
No, I know, it must be something wrong with the language, mustn't it? Let's just invent a new one. Even better, let's sit around whining to try and get someone *else* to invent a new one. How very clever we all are.
Damn, I knew it was stupid to even look at cll again. I'll retreat back to my cave again now.
