The Subject line is a bit of an overstatement. He's proposing use of s-expressions for data files, but not for representing programs themselves. This actually has some precedents. If anyone remembers WAIS, take a look at the format of its "source" records (the developers of WAIS were mainly Lisp folks at Thinking Machines). And even Sun has used s-expressions internally -- take a look at the files in /var/spool/calendar, which are used by their OpenWindows Calendar Manager application.
S-expression is probably one of the simplest ways to represent nestable data structures in text. I applaud the article.
-- Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Don't bother cc'ing followups to me.
With Sun/Netscape hiring up all the ex-lispers, maybe I can stop trying to make Lisp better, Java will soon be good enough?
BTW, I tried to get Franz to create "Lava" about 3-4 years ago. Seems most people laughed at the name. Having Netscape/Sun use it perhaps makes it not so funny anymore? My language is now called NiCLOS(tm), the name is funny, but is the language?
Kelly Murray <k...@IntelliMarket.Com> writes: > BTW, I tried to get Franz to create "Lava" about 3-4 years ago. > Seems most people laughed at the name. Having Netscape/Sun use it > perhaps makes it not so funny anymore? > My language is now called NiCLOS(tm), the name is funny, > but is the language?
So what's Lisp-like and what's Java-like in your language? Does your langage compile down to Java VM code? Do you have a uniform way to use Java classes via CLOS? I can't see how this is even remotely possible, considering that:
1) Java has no multiple inheritance 2) Java's class definitions are lexical with respect to methods, if you consider a class file as a lexical entity. 3) Java has no multimethods, and dispatch depends only on the class of a single object.
I am surely no expert, but I work closely with Java and Lisp development, and I really don't see how this would work. Where can one read about this?
In article <VL0x2.4$QE2...@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net>, Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>He's proposing use of >s-expressions for data files, but not for representing programs themselves.
I was surprised he didn't mentioned XML, since this is largely what XML is all about. (And, yes, they are also writing programming languages based on XML. See XSL <http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/> and contrast with the Scheme-based DSSSL for doing the same task.)
XML is basically S-expressions with some bells and whistles (as McCarthy pointed out at the Lisp User's conference). It has a more verbose but easier checkable syntax.
As such, any proposal to use S-expressions *for Java* as Detlefs proposes is both DOA and wrong-headed. People should be using XML instead, because more tools will be able to handle it, and because it will be more familiar to more people.
* jos...@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) | See the smiley in the body of the posting.
maybe these smileys destroy communication? maybe they detract from the effort of being good at sarcasm, jokes, irony, or plain old lunacy.
at one point in my life, I became acquainted with the habit of thinking that lying was OK if you held two fingers crossed behind your back. I couldn't figure out why this was important to people. if I lied, it was to protect something much more important than whoever I lied to, not to play stupid tricks on people. I could play much better tricks on people by making them believe something that would hurt them without my actually telling them anything for which they could directly fault me. it has since been a puzzling experience to see people fool _themselves_ so thoroughly that if you told them the truth, they think you're lying.
"I have never had a sexual relationship with that women, Miss Lewinsky." did you see his hands? could he have crossed his fingers or made some other secret gesture by which he meant "the laugh's on you, buster"? and then it got out of hand because "I was only kidding" didn't work with the kid-me-not Kenneth Starr. maybe all the Democrats were in on it and the moralistic Republicans will be laughed out of politics? that'd be cool. meanwhile, there's not a single smiley on Kenneth Starr's pornographic report, either, not even the smirk you'd expect from someone digging up so much personal dirt about others. I think he forgot to include it:
"There is Substantial and Credible Information that President Clinton Committed Acts that May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment :>"
In article <3127870484360...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote:
>* jos...@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) >| See the smiley in the body of the posting.
> maybe these smileys destroy communication? maybe they detract from the > effort of being good at sarcasm, jokes, irony, or plain old lunacy.
I think I assumed that the smiley in that posting was just expressing happiness, like a true smile. I didn't realize it was a "tongue in cheek" smiley.
-- Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Don't bother cc'ing followups to me.
Great. A Sun Java researcher who apparently likes LISP but doesn't know about Kawa[1] (the Scheme for the JVM). Not only does it have S-expressions but even compiles them to bytecodes including the useful-seperate-from-scheme gnu.bytecode package so you can make classes from whatever you want.
Now if they were only researching the JVM change that is really needed: continuations.
If the JVM specification had been based on continuations instead of the implementation-minded threads stuff they would not only have avoided having to deprecate the whole damn thing as they have, but would have a machine model that could/would be amenable to formal analysis (as it is no one tries - they simply ignore the threading stuff).
>> BTW, I tried to get Franz to create "Lava" about 3-4 years ago. >> Seems most people laughed at the name. Having Netscape/Sun use it >> perhaps makes it not so funny anymore? >> My language is now called NiCLOS(tm), the name is funny, >> but is the language?
>So what's Lisp-like and what's Java-like in your language? Does your >langage compile down to Java VM code? Do you have a uniform way to >use Java classes via CLOS? I can't see how this is even remotely >possible, considering that:
>1) Java has no multiple inheritance >2) Java's class definitions are lexical with respect to methods, if > you consider a class file as a lexical entity. >3) Java has no multimethods, and dispatch depends only on the class of > a single object.
Could someone please remind me of what exactly we gain by abandoning Lisp and moving to Java?
Here is all I am able to come up with:
1) Unprecedented momentum of hype 2) Infix notation to avoid frightening dogs and small children 2.5) Reduced wear on parentheses keys on keyboards 3) Some slightly challenging concepts like macros are made to vanish 4) Some slightly suspicious hand-waving claims that useful integrity checks can be performed on portable bytecode before running it 5) An opportunity for yet another generation of enthusiasts to reinvent compilers, operating systems, utilities, interactive development environments, and special purpose hardware for the nth time in ever slower and bulkier forms 6) An opportunity to slip some sizable loads of ignorance of prior art past snoozing patent examiners, and thus lay down potentially lucrative legal minefields
b...@crl3.crl.com (Bradley Yearwood) writes: > Could someone please remind me of what exactly we gain by abandoning > Lisp and moving to Java?
Well...
* You can download a full, uncrippled Java implementation + IDE for any major platform absolutely free, and in the case of the JDK even get the source code. AFAIK you can only do this with the Unix platform for Common Lisp.
* Swing, unlike CLIM, doesn't cost $4000-$7000 to even try out on Unix.
* True keyboard and mouse control (you can distinguish between a keyboard down-press and release, so you can give your text fields Emacs-like incremental searching and bindings or do sophisticated word completions or any other cool thing you could think up. And of course, completely standard and cross-platform.
* On Linux (and probably other platforms), you can choose if you want the threads in a single process (Allegro CL style), or if you want OS-level threads. It doesn't get any better than that (as if one standard, cross-platform interface to threads wasn't convenient enough).
* Graphics, low-level networking, applets in browsers, sound, look-and-feel support, the kitchen sink.... It actually seems to be a larger language than Common Lisp, and it gives you all the access to the primitive hardware, windowing-system and networking functionality that you really want but in a way that will work on Unix, Windows, Mac or whatever without even needing to recompile for that platform. ANSI Common Lisp gives you little more primitive hardware control and system access than ANSI C (not including CLIM, but IMO that doesn't really count).
It's funny, my Java instructor at the college was talking about how it took them 6-8 years or so to start offering C++ classes, but only 3 months to offer Java classes. He said a big factor in this was that you can download everything for free to all the computers in the lab. Lisp has yet to be offered, and probably will never be (I think they teach a little AutoLisp though in the CAD classes).
I think every ounce of hype Java has recieved is deserved. As a language itself, I think it's better than C, C++, Eiffel, ADA, etc... and just about any other non logical/functional programming language out there. But none of the logical/functional languages can compete with it's level of standardization and the platform independent system control it gives you. And Common Lisp sure can't compete with its real cost in most situations (all things considered).
It would be nice if Common Lisp could at least standardise some of the networking, threads and i/o functionality you get in Java, and if it had a standard, accessible and reasonably priced GUI toolkit.
In a fantasy world, you could even have Common Lisp compile to Java byte-code and run wherever the Java Runtime Environment runs and do all the system-level stuff that Java does (yes, I've heard of Kawa scheme).
> It would be nice if Common Lisp could at least standardise some of the > networking, threads and i/o functionality you get in Java, and if it > had a standard, accessible and reasonably priced GUI toolkit.
I'd settle for DEFSYSTEM, MULTIPROCESSING and FFI.
> In a fantasy world, you could even have Common Lisp compile to Java > byte-code and run wherever the Java Runtime Environment runs and do > all the system-level stuff that Java does (yes, I've heard of Kawa > scheme).
I am no expert, but I'd almost think that compiling Common Lisp could be easier than Scheme. The lack of CALL/CC might be a facilitating factor. Anybody care to comment?
* cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) | * You can download a full, uncrippled Java implementation + IDE for | any major platform absolutely free, and in the case of the JDK even | get the source code. AFAIK you can only do this with the Unix | platform for Common Lisp.
www.franz.com offers Allegro CL Lite to any stray comer. includes IDE. (but use LOAD-COMPILED instead of COMPILE-FILE and LOAD.)
| * Swing, unlike CLIM, doesn't cost $4000-$7000 to even try out on Unix.
none of the CLIM providers charge you money for trying it out before you decide to buy it or not.
| I think every ounce of hype Java has recieved is deserved.
???
| As a language itself, I think it's better than C, C++, Eiffel, ADA,
"Ada" is named after Ada Lovelace. it's a proper name, not an acronym. (I helped start the "Ada in Norway" user group in 1985. it's my "other" language, and my company logo still carries symbols from the Ada world. that people write ADA, like they write LISP, is a pet peeve.)
| And Common Lisp sure can't compete with its real cost in most situations | (all things considered).
I don't think you are a competent judge of that, _especially_ not the parenthetical remark.
| It would be nice if Common Lisp could at least standardise some of the | networking, threads and i/o functionality you get in Java, and if it had | a standard, accessible and reasonably priced GUI toolkit.
I'm still confused as to this standardization issue. yes, it would be nice if it were standardized, but why can't you use something today? Common Lisp is a standard _because_ it was used and gaining solid support for a number of really complex things. if people who do not understand how these things work refuse to use something _until_ it's standard, it will likely never become a standard, and if, against all odds, it should, you guys will complain and not use it, anyway.
some of us prefer languages that don't change a lot, that aren't in the middle of the fight between good and evil, and on which long-term investments may actually be made with solid profit expectations. Common Lisp has a problem in that only mature people use it _after_ they have become disgusted with other languages and their hype.
In article <873e46hfyo.fsf...@2xtreme.net> , cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher
R. Barry) wrote: > b...@crl3.crl.com (Bradley Yearwood) writes:
>> Could someone please remind me of what exactly we gain by abandoning >> Lisp and moving to Java?
> Well...
> * You can download a full, uncrippled Java implementation + IDE for > any major platform absolutely free, and in the case of the JDK even > get the source code. AFAIK you can only do this with the Unix > platform for Common Lisp.
There are downloadable versions for Mac (Digitool trial version, and Roger Corman's $50 shareware), PC (both Franz and Harlequin), and Linux (Franz full version). Digitool will give you a 30-day evaluation key for the asking. Franz's Linux version is for noncommercial use.
OTOH, if you're developing a commercial application, Lisp vendors require that you pay for a supported version of the product (and sometimes, even for a distribution license).
If you're building a product that can't reasonably be done except in Lisp -- and there _are_ products in that space -- then the extra cost is justifiable. Face it, you're going to pay one way or another. Hidden costs that I've seen with "low-cost and popular" IDEs are: lost time to market, extra programmers, tracking down vendor bugs, being blocked 3 to 9 months for a release that fixes a problem in the compiler, etc.
> * Swing, unlike CLIM, doesn't cost $4000-$7000 to even try out on Unix.
Have the Lisp vendors denied your request for an evaluation copy? Have you even asked?
> * True keyboard and mouse control (you can distinguish between a > keyboard down-press and release, so you can give your text fields > Emacs-like incremental searching and bindings or do sophisticated > word completions or any other cool thing you could think up. And of > course, completely standard and cross-platform.
Of course, completely standard and cross-platform... Hmm, didn't Microsoft make an argument that it had to break from the Pure Java fold because Sun didn't want to support 3-button mice?
> * On Linux (and probably other platforms), you can choose if you want > the threads in a single process (Allegro CL style), or if you want > OS-level threads. It doesn't get any better than that (as if one > standard, cross-platform interface to threads wasn't convenient > enough).
So, aside from having a choice, what are the benefits? Can you do OS-native threads in a platform-independent manner?
> * Graphics, low-level networking, applets in browsers, sound, > look-and-feel support, the kitchen sink.... It actually seems to be > a larger language than Common Lisp, and it gives you all the access > to the primitive hardware, windowing-system and networking > functionality that you really want but in a way that will work on > Unix, Windows, Mac or whatever without even needing to recompile for > that platform. ANSI Common Lisp gives you little more primitive > hardware control and system access than ANSI C (not including CLIM, > but IMO that doesn't really count).
Wow. You've been reading the Sun PR hype, haven't you? Ever try to run any of this stuff on a Mac? Or even a PC? Look, Sun does a nice job with Java on the Sun platforms. But their portability claims are _vastly_ oversold. I tried their Java-based browser (HotJava?) on a Sun workstation and was very pleased. Later the same day, I tried it on my Mac; I threw it away after counting some two dozen cosmetic, usability, and functional flaws in five minutes. (Note: Given all of the hype about Java's portability, you might ask why Sun has different HotJava versions for different platforms.)
You might be surprised to know that Common Lisp implementations also give you access to low-level OS and hardware functionality via their FFI. Not portable, but then neither are Mac OS APIs portable to Win32.
And of course Java doesn't have to be recompiled because it's transferred in a platform-neutral format: byte code. Did you know that some Lisp systems (CLISP, CMUCL) have the same capability? Do you understand that Common Lisp source code is _highly_ portable because it doesn't encode issues of machine-level data representation? (Yes, Java gets this half-right by specifying fixed representations for data types. I wonder what Sun will do when 128-bit machines hit the market. How many times has the Java "standard" already changed?)
> It's funny, my Java instructor at the college was talking about how it > took them 6-8 years or so to start offering C++ classes, but only 3 > months to offer Java classes. He said a big factor in this was that > you can download everything for free to all the computers in the > lab. Lisp has yet to be offered, and probably will never be (I think > they teach a little AutoLisp though in the CAD classes).
Ah, yes. The popularity argument. A real classic. (Not now, Ethel -- I'm busy. Just hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete, maybe it will work better next time.)
> I think every ounce of hype Java has recieved is deserved. As a > language itself, I think it's better than C, C++, Eiffel, ADA, > etc... and just about any other non logical/functional programming > language out there. But none of the logical/functional languages can > compete with it's level of standardization and the platform > independent system control it gives you. And Common Lisp sure can't > compete with its real cost in most situations (all things considered).
Every ounce of hype Java has received is still just hype. I have observed early adopters foundering and failing with Sun's not-quite-ready-for-primetime "free" products, and with not-free derivatives thereof. Since these folks were actually trying to bring something to market, there's a real cost involved. (Three or four programmers for six months is going to cost a company about $200K to $250K in the US. That's a lot of time and money to throw away on the basis of favorable hype, particularly when the actual outcome doesn't meet expectations. In this context, the expenditure of a couple tens of thousands of dollars for mature tools and training isn't such a big deal.)
> It would be nice if Common Lisp could at least standardise some of the > networking, threads and i/o functionality you get in Java, and if it > had a standard, accessible and reasonably priced GUI toolkit.
Yeah, standards would be nice. OTOH, I can already get all of this functionality in a platform-dependent manner and write (if needed) thin abstraction layers around it. Frankly, I don't mind "rolling my own" while waiting for a standard to emerge based upon actual experience. One of Sun's own wrote a "dissenting opinion" on the perils of premature standardization...
> In a fantasy world, you could even have Common Lisp compile to Java > byte-code and run wherever the Java Runtime Environment runs and do > all the system-level stuff that Java does (yes, I've heard of Kawa > scheme).
And _why_ would I want to run interpreted or JIT-compiled bytecode when I can run native code? (Remember, mobile code is handled quite nicely in Lisp by transporting and compiling the source.)
< < In article <cxjpv7fmczm....@engc.bu.edu>, David Bakhash <ca...@bu.edu> wrote: < >Kelly Murray <k...@IntelliMarket.Com> writes: < > < >> BTW, I tried to get Franz to create "Lava" about 3-4 years ago. < >> Seems most people laughed at the name. Having Netscape/Sun use it < >> perhaps makes it not so funny anymore? < >> My language is now called NiCLOS(tm), the name is funny, < >> but is the language? < > < >So what's Lisp-like and what's Java-like in your language? Does your < >langage compile down to Java VM code? Do you have a uniform way to < >use Java classes via CLOS? I can't see how this is even remotely < >possible, considering that: < > < >1) Java has no multiple inheritance < >2) Java's class definitions are lexical with respect to methods, if < > you consider a class file as a lexical entity. < >3) Java has no multimethods, and dispatch depends only on the class of < > a single object. < < Could someone please remind me of what exactly we gain by abandoning < Lisp and moving to Java? < < Here is all I am able to come up with: < < 1) Unprecedented momentum of hype < 2) Infix notation to avoid frightening dogs and small children < 2.5) Reduced wear on parentheses keys on keyboards < 3) Some slightly challenging concepts like macros are made to vanish < 4) Some slightly suspicious hand-waving claims that useful integrity < checks can be performed on portable bytecode before running it < 5) An opportunity for yet another generation of enthusiasts to reinvent < compilers, operating systems, utilities, interactive development < environments, and special purpose hardware for the nth time in ever slower < and bulkier forms < 6) An opportunity to slip some sizable loads of ignorance of prior art past < snoozing patent examiners, and thus lay down potentially lucrative legal < minefields
You forgot that you can run Java programs on every windows and Solaris computer in the world!
< b...@crl3.crl.com (Bradley Yearwood) writes: < < > Could someone please remind me of what exactly we gain by abandoning < > Lisp and moving to Java? < < Well... < < * You can download a full, uncrippled Java implementation + IDE for < any major platform absolutely free, and in the case of the JDK even < get the source code. AFAIK you can only do this with the Unix < platform for Common Lisp.
Really? You mean Java runs on every Java platform - Solaris and windows. You do know that all software is portable right?
You can get the source code for Java on _Solaris_ if you sign an NDA, I think you can do this for lisp as well.
"David B. Lamkins" <dlamk...@teleport.com> writes:
< Wow. You've been reading the Sun PR hype, haven't you? Ever try to run any < of this stuff on a Mac? Or even a PC? Look, Sun does a nice job with Java < on the Sun platforms. But their portability claims are _vastly_ oversold. < I tried their Java-based browser (HotJava?) on a Sun workstation and was < very pleased. Later the same day, I tried it on my Mac; I threw it away < after counting some two dozen cosmetic, usability, and functional flaws in < five minutes. (Note: Given all of the hype about Java's portability, you < might ask why Sun has different HotJava versions for different platforms.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is due to the fact that Java is portable. Portable, being an undesirable, non-existant situation which requires work to make it go away. All software is portable, unless it just works of course.
Unix software is portable.
< And _why_ would I want to run interpreted or JIT-compiled bytecode when I < can run native code? (Remember, mobile code is handled quite nicely in Lisp < by transporting and compiling the source.)
I wonder why they call it `Just in Time' compiler. Sounds like some kind of marketing savior.
Don't get me wrong, I love Java and it's cross platform OO capabilities. Plus it makes writing mission critical easy.
> I wonder why they call it `Just in Time' compiler. Sounds like some > kind of marketing savior.
Isn't computing & compiling code `just in time' one of the things that people have been whining at Lisp -- specifically CLOS with things like lazily computed effective methods -- about for years? I mean, it means you have to have the compiler in memory all the time, and we can't have that, can we? Oh, well, we can *now*.
It's just like GC: for years, `Lisp was crippled because it had GC' now Java has it, why GC is suddenly fine. (It's really amusing teaching Lisp to people now, suddenly they don't go all funny when you talk about GC).
There was recently some work on class redefinition in C++, so that's probably OK now too.
I guess we need to invent some new and outragous features for people to complain about. (Well, there's already the CLOS MOP, but it's not quite universal enough to be a real target for derision.)
In article <nkj3e46qlv0....@tfeb.org>, Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> wrote:
>I guess we need to invent some new and outragous features for people >to complain about. (Well, there's already the CLOS MOP, but it's not >quite universal enough to be a real target for derision.)
We still have the corner on the market for parentheses. The one new language that was going to adopt our syntax (Dylan) gave in and switched to algebraic/imperative notation. Even the article that started this thread only suggested using S-secpressions for data files, not programs.
-- Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Don't bother cc'ing followups to me.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) > | * You can download a full, uncrippled Java implementation + IDE for > | any major platform absolutely free, and in the case of the JDK even > | get the source code. AFAIK you can only do this with the Unix > | platform for Common Lisp.
> www.franz.com offers Allegro CL Lite to any stray comer. includes IDE. > (but use LOAD-COMPILED instead of COMPILE-FILE and LOAD.)
It's crippled, and you must pay if you want to use it commercially.
> | * Swing, unlike CLIM, doesn't cost $4000-$7000 to even try out on Unix.
> none of the CLIM providers charge you money for trying it out before you > decide to buy it or not.
I would feel dishonest if I contacted Franz about getting an evaluation copy of CLIM. I know that no matter how much I liked it, I could not at this point in my life afford it.
It would be nice if it could be obtained under the same terms as the Allegro CL Linux Trial Edition, where you can use it as long as you like, and not feel obligated to purchase it. After having been able to use Allegro CL so extensively, I know that at some point in the future I would definately buy it if using Common Lisp for a big project.
> | It would be nice if Common Lisp could at least standardise some of the > | networking, threads and i/o functionality you get in Java, and if it had > | a standard, accessible and reasonably priced GUI toolkit.
> I'm still confused as to this standardization issue. yes, it would be > nice if it were standardized, but why can't you use something today?
I am. When it comes down to it, I still _definitely_ do not prefer Java over CL. You know, _interpreted_ Garnet gui code seems smoother and GCs much less than Java (though the pauses are longer - scrollbars can really suck, gotta take care of this...). There are a number of things that Java gets right though, like knowing how to actually get a little mind share.
> Common Lisp has a problem in that only mature people use it _after_ > they have become disgusted with other languages and their hype.
Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> writes: > cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) writes:
> > It would be nice if Common Lisp could at least standardise some of the > > networking, threads and i/o functionality you get in Java, and if it > > had a standard, accessible and reasonably priced GUI toolkit.
> I'd settle for DEFSYSTEM, MULTIPROCESSING and FFI.
At least Mark Kantrowitz's defsystem runs on just about every CL out there. The Allegro one is kinda nicer, but I think Mark's has all the functionality you really need to get the job done. Standardization would not hurt though.
"David B. Lamkins" <dlamk...@teleport.com> writes:
> > * On Linux (and probably other platforms), you can choose if you want > > the threads in a single process (Allegro CL style), or if you want > > OS-level threads. It doesn't get any better than that (as if one > > standard, cross-platform interface to threads wasn't convenient > > enough).
> So, aside from having a choice, what are the benefits? Can you do OS-native > threads in a platform-independent manner?
Maybe some time in the future.... You can't choose from within the Java API itself if you want OS or in-process threads. I'm sure you're familiar with the benefits of using one over the other in different situations.
> > * Graphics, low-level networking, applets in browsers, sound, > > look-and-feel support, the kitchen sink.... It actually seems to be > > a larger language than Common Lisp, and it gives you all the access > > to the primitive hardware, windowing-system and networking > > functionality that you really want but in a way that will work on > > Unix, Windows, Mac or whatever without even needing to recompile for > > that platform. ANSI Common Lisp gives you little more primitive > > hardware control and system access than ANSI C (not including CLIM, > > but IMO that doesn't really count).
> Wow. You've been reading the Sun PR hype, haven't you? Ever try to run any > of this stuff on a Mac? Or even a PC? Look, Sun does a nice job with Java > on the Sun platforms.
Actually, it seems that Windows is the finest Java platform these days and the most supported. All the fastest JVMs/JITs are for Windows, and when Java 1.2 came out, the Windows version was the final one while the Solaris one was supposed to still be beta or evaluatory or something.
> But their portability claims are _vastly_ oversold. I tried their > Java-based browser (HotJava?) on a Sun workstation and was very > pleased. Later the same day, I tried it on my Mac; I threw it away > after counting some two dozen cosmetic, usability, and functional > flaws in five minutes.
I've never heard of any bad things about the Metroworks Java tools for the Mac.
> You might be surprised to know that Common Lisp implementations also > give you access to low-level OS and hardware functionality via their > FFI. Not portable, but then neither are Mac OS APIs portable to > Win32.
Probably because there's so little interest in such a thing. I'm sure there are Win32 API layers that sit atop of the MacOS API though. But Java gives you everything you really need from the platform specific API without needing to use it.
> And of course Java doesn't have to be recompiled because it's transferred in > a platform-neutral format: byte code. Did you know that some Lisp systems > (CLISP, CMUCL) have the same capability?
Not quite in the same league.
> Do you understand that Common Lisp source code is _highly_ portable > because it doesn't encode issues of machine-level data > representation?
I understand that ANSI Common Lisp is highly portable. ANSI C also will never, ever break when moving from 32 to 64 bits if you code properly. It's just way easier to screw up.
> (Yes, Java gets this half-right by specifying fixed representations > for data types. I wonder what Sun will do when 128-bit machines hit > the market.
Common Lisp has a kinda oddball size for FIXNUMs. What is it doing about 64-bit platforms? What will it do when we've got 128-bit ones?
> How many times has the Java "standard" already changed?)
It's been updated twice, and the runtime environment and browsers all still have to run the 1.0 code and 1.1 code too.
> Ah, yes. The popularity argument. A real classic. (Not now, Ethel -- I'm > busy. Just hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete, maybe it will work better next time.)
Why can't Lisp become more popular? What's stopping it? Do you think that the reasons outlined in "The Rise of Worse Is Better" are the _real_ reasons?
> And _why_ would I want to run interpreted or JIT-compiled bytecode when I > can run native code? (Remember, mobile code is handled quite nicely in Lisp > by transporting and compiling the source.)
You could write applets in CL and basically gain all the advantages and cross-platform functionality Java has. You can't do sockets or threads in CL without a hell of a lot of #+ and #- and have it work in any CL providing access to these features. And many are reluctant to ship source code.
Steve Gonedes <sgone...@worldnet.att.net> writes: > You forgot that you can run Java programs on every windows and Solaris > computer in the world!
And almost every Unix computer (even Crays), and the MacOS, and NeXT, and ...within 2 web browsers that run on OSs covering 99% of the OS market share.
We use Java extensively here. We also use CL extensively here.
> * Swing, unlike CLIM, doesn't cost $4000-$7000 to even try out on Unix.
It's also bigger and _way_ slower.
> * On Linux (and probably other platforms), you can choose if you want > the threads in a single process (Allegro CL style), or if you want > OS-level threads. It doesn't get any better than that (as if one > standard, cross-platform interface to threads wasn't convenient > enough).
Yes, but oddly enough "green threads" (single process style) are stunningly slow. Native threads on Solaris also suck unless you get the right patches to run the production version - and even then they require mind numbing amounts of cpu power to do much. Of course this _could_ be fixed, but then why bother?
> * Graphics, low-level networking, applets in browsers, sound, > look-and-feel support, the kitchen sink.... It actually seems to be
Sort of. Anybody actually using this stuff in real world situations knows that there is more hype here than reality. Yes, some of it actually works and some of it is more convenient than using something else in certain situations. But it isn't even remotely anything like the panacea that it is made out to be - and it often just plain doesn't work.
> language itself, I think it's better than C, C++, Eiffel, ADA,
That's Ada - a proper name. Like Eiffel...
> independent system control it gives you. And Common Lisp sure can't > compete with its real cost in most situations (all things > considered).
How can you make such a claim? "Most situations" meaning..., what? Toy oneoffs? Simple minded university class projects? Maybe. Maybe not.
> It would be nice if Common Lisp could at least standardise some of > the networking, threads and i/o functionality you get in Java, and > if it had a standard, accessible and reasonably priced GUI toolkit.
Yes, it would be great if CL had a standard thread/tasking definition - it's an important fundamental piece of functionality. Networking stuff is really a shoulder shrug wrt "standardization" in the language. Probably too specialized to even be appropriate.
But all of that is irrelevant in this context when you consider the _fact_ that _nothing_ in Java is standardized! Not even the basic constructs of the language let alone any of the libraries/APIs and such. A _standard_ means something accepted by a _real_ standards body - like ANSI or ISO. Sun is not a standards body and it can (and often _does_) just change things out from under you - and then (adding insult to injury) deprecate those changes in a future release.
/Jon
-- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd. Belmont, MA 02478, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari
In article <87pv7af7mj....@2xtreme.net>, cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) wrote:
> Steve Gonedes <sgone...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > You forgot that you can run Java programs on every windows and Solaris > > computer in the world!
> And almost every Unix computer (even Crays), and the MacOS, and NeXT, > and ...within 2 web browsers that run on OSs covering 99% of the OS > market share.
Hmm, last time I wanted to install Solaris via a Java interface:
- HotJava crashed - Netscape on a PC had a version conflict with the Applet - Netscape on a Mac did not really wanted to accept my click on an install button
