(1) The whole thing started when my headmaster told me (I teach) that LISP had fallen into oblivion and was dead. I then interrupted him and maintained that LISP was a wonderful idiom and a lot of things are (still?) being done in LISP. (I had done some EMACS LISP programming at the time.) But I then looked at the shelves in the local bookshop that is a university book shop and then a second look at the shelves in the library of the university and I was negatively overwhelmed, as I could find almost nothing on LISP (or in the library a lot of outdated stuff but no current books).
(I found a German book on LISP in which the authors admitted that they had been seriously thinking about covering CL but they still preferred Nils' LISP instead, as ... In Nils' LISP you say "(de ...)" instead of "(defun ...)" but de is probably better, as ... Usually a book is bad if the authors are not conpetent. But these authors overflow with knowledge. And still, something had gone wrong. )
(2) I have taken a look at the online book by LAMKINS and after reading it for two hours I have decided that it is wonderful, just the book I was looking for. But he cannot find a publisher as his publisher also believes that "LISP is...(sacrilege)".
(3) If LISP finally finds its niche like PL/I, so this is no solution for LISP. LISP seems to be a wonderful idiom if you think like a mathematician (you don't have to be one!) and would have deserved much, much more. I am a mathematician. (Well, at least theoretically: I teach math.)
(4) But LISP IS esoteric. Its being different from BASIC and C is really its strength. Therefore newcomers need a lot of handholding and please, please no esoteric acronyms.
(5) I asked about Tk as it is simple and FREE and works on WIN32 and on LINUX. I have been considering LISP for my teaching but then I cannot dispense with a LISP-GUI. If you consider big applications it may be very nice to have one part of the program in LISP and the GUI part in C++, but this is no solution for schoolchildren between fifteen and twenty.
And it partly depends on these kids that LISP finally take the place it deserves.
(6) I shall not give up LISP and I shall ask questions. If one of you is willing to answer, please do not tell me that I was an idiot to ask such a trivial question (as somebody did yesterday). (It was not clear to me that compiling is done from within LISP with (compile-file ...)).
Janos Blazi wrote: > If LISP finally finds its niche like PL/I, so this is no solution for LISP.
Even though it's tempting to compare Lisp against other languages of longevity like PL/1 or COBOL, one needs to see what drives them individually. PL/1 and COBOL aren't only used because on some mainframes the option is limited (e.g., to C), or that they are easy for implementing particular functions (like mergesort), but because there is a tremendous amount of legacy code that still needs to work for some more time. That is partially true for Lisp (-> AI winter), but:
It is the stream of newcomers, new clients and new applications that ensure CL's continued success. There are lots of Lispers out there who joined in _after_ the AI winter, including myself.
Also, look up some previous postings from Erik Naggum (about a few months back), in which he disputes motivations behind "jumping on the Lisp bandwagon" (search words: lie, skill, resume, competency, employer).
> LISP seems to be a wonderful idiom if you think
This is so true :-)
> (4) > But LISP IS esoteric. Its being different from BASIC and C is really its > strength. Therefore newcomers need a lot of handholding and please, please > no esoteric acronyms.
I looked up the dictionary definition of esoteric: "Intended for or understood by only a particular group.". The first part (intention) obviously does not apply: CL is a general-purpose, widely available language. The second part (understanding) is true: programming as a whole or publishing or surgery is esoteric in this sense. That's valuable too, as you point out - it gives you an advantage.
From a certain point of view CL is less esoteric than C, as it does not force you to think about type safety, pointers, array boundaries, overflows and memory management. Ask a 10(?)-year-old about the sum of 742598273456987234 and 42039845726340872 or three times one third.
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:51:15 +0200, Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote: > But LISP IS esoteric.
Perhaps something is "lost in the translation" here but I don't get the above. I checked the definition of "esoteric" on my local dictionary server, here is what it says:
,---- | Esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, a. | Marked by secrecy or privacy; private; select; confidential; | as, an esoteric purpose; an esoteric meeting. `----
That doesn't sound like my experience of CL (or any "lisp" I've played with).
Let me tell you something about my experience with CL. I don't "do" CL, I don't generally "do" any Lisp. I do, however, "dabble" with Lisp. This started around two to three years back when I wanted to make emacs do something for me. I was faced with the task of trying to learn lisp.
Now, my initial reaction was "why does this editor use such a stupid language?". After a little bit of thought I realised that that was the wrong question, the real question was "why do I think the language used by this editor is stupid?".
After a little more thought I decided to try the elisp programming tutorial. To cut a long story short I was knocking up the emacs oriented tools I wanted in no time. I won't claim the code was pretty, I won't claim it was well designed, I won't even claim that it has survived to this day (it hasn't). The important point here is that I did it.
How did I do it? I read the docs, purchased a book or two and asked one or two questions. At *no* point in that process did I find "secrecy" or "privacy". At *no* point in that process did I find anything that could be considered "esoteric".
Since then I've started to dabble with CL itself. My book shelf has a couple of books on the subject sat on it, they get read from time to time. I read this group, I scan the various web sites now and again. Every so often I'll "dabble" with some CL code.
My point here? Despite my ignorance about various issues in CL I've never met with "secrecy" and "privacy", I've never found it to be "esoteric". Sure, sometimes I can't easily figure something out and I'll "swear at the language", but, soon after I'll find that I was only blaming the language for my own ignorance.
> Its being different from BASIC and C is really its strength. Therefore > newcomers need a lot of handholding and please, please no esoteric > acronyms.
This doesn't make any sense at all. As a newcomer to lisp (and, even a couple of years down the road, I'm still a newcomer (thru choice, not due to the language)) I find the language no more esoteric than I found C when i first tried to write a line of C code. Hell, you could say the same for BASIC.
Stop putting the blame on the language ("lisp is esoteric") and stop seeing secrecy and privacy where there is none ("lisp is esoteric"). In my humble experience there is a *lot* of quality material out there for the taking, all you have to do is take it and work with it.
[Aside]
As to the talk about this group and the "community" we've seen over the past few days. Well, all I can say is that while I've yet to write a line of "commercial" lisp code I can honestly say that the issues I've read here for the last couple of years and the things I've gained from reading people's CL code have had an impact on my "real world" coding.
I like to think that that impact is a positive one.
Thanks from one c.l.l lurker.
-- Take a look in Hagbard's World: | boxquote.el - "Boxed" text quoting. http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | binclock.el - emacs binary clock. http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes. emacs software, including.......| quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
To say that something is esoteric means that it only those who are initiated understand it. To say that LISP is esoteric is not a complaint; it describes tha language as it is.
If you know some mathematics, the notion of a differentiable manifold is VERY esoteric, but there are hundred books on the subject and some of them are most definitely masterpieces.
LISP is for those who in some way like abstract thinking and this is a very small group of people. A COBOL programmer on the other hand can write thousands of lines of code a day.
Dave Pearson <davep.n...@hagbard.demon.co.uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: slrn81grvb.lqg.davep.n...@hagbard.demon.co.uk...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:51:15 +0200, Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote:
> > But LISP IS esoteric.
> Perhaps something is "lost in the translation" here but I don't get the > above. I checked the definition of "esoteric" on my local dictionary server, > here is what it says:
> ,---- > | Esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, a. > | Marked by secrecy or privacy; private; select; confidential; > | as, an esoteric purpose; an esoteric meeting. > `----
> That doesn't sound like my experience of CL (or any "lisp" I've played > with).
> Let me tell you something about my experience with CL. I don't "do" CL, I > don't generally "do" any Lisp. I do, however, "dabble" with Lisp. This > started around two to three years back when I wanted to make emacs do > something for me. I was faced with the task of trying to learn lisp.
> Now, my initial reaction was "why does this editor use such a stupid > language?". After a little bit of thought I realised that that was the wrong > question, the real question was "why do I think the language used by this > editor is stupid?".
> After a little more thought I decided to try the elisp programming tutorial. > To cut a long story short I was knocking up the emacs oriented tools I > wanted in no time. I won't claim the code was pretty, I won't claim it was > well designed, I won't even claim that it has survived to this day (it > hasn't). The important point here is that I did it.
> How did I do it? I read the docs, purchased a book or two and asked one or > two questions. At *no* point in that process did I find "secrecy" or > "privacy". At *no* point in that process did I find anything that could be > considered "esoteric".
> Since then I've started to dabble with CL itself. My book shelf has a couple > of books on the subject sat on it, they get read from time to time. I read > this group, I scan the various web sites now and again. Every so often I'll > "dabble" with some CL code.
> My point here? Despite my ignorance about various issues in CL I've never > met with "secrecy" and "privacy", I've never found it to be "esoteric". > Sure, sometimes I can't easily figure something out and I'll "swear at the > language", but, soon after I'll find that I was only blaming the language > for my own ignorance.
> > Its being different from BASIC and C is really its strength. Therefore > > newcomers need a lot of handholding and please, please no esoteric > > acronyms.
> This doesn't make any sense at all. As a newcomer to lisp (and, even a > couple of years down the road, I'm still a newcomer (thru choice, not due to > the language)) I find the language no more esoteric than I found C when i > first tried to write a line of C code. Hell, you could say the same for > BASIC.
> Stop putting the blame on the language ("lisp is esoteric") and stop seeing > secrecy and privacy where there is none ("lisp is esoteric"). In my humble > experience there is a *lot* of quality material out there for the taking, > all you have to do is take it and work with it.
> [Aside]
> As to the talk about this group and the "community" we've seen over the past > few days. Well, all I can say is that while I've yet to write a line of > "commercial" lisp code I can honestly say that the issues I've read here for > the last couple of years and the things I've gained from reading people's CL > code have had an impact on my "real world" coding.
> I like to think that that impact is a positive one.
> Thanks from one c.l.l lurker.
> -- > Take a look in Hagbard's World: | boxquote.el - "Boxed" text quoting. > http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | binclock.el - emacs binary clock. > http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes. > emacs software, including.......| quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
In article <caliper-7v9gsd/INN-2.2.1/abdomi...@broadway.news.is-europe.net>, "Janos
Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote: >I have taken a look at the online book by LAMKINS and after reading it for >two hours I have decided that it is wonderful, just the book I was looking >for. But he cannot find a publisher as his publisher also believes that >"LISP is...(sacrilege)".
Please have a look at the FAQ. I intend to publish this on CD-ROM at some point. Meanwhile, the rough draft is available on the web. If you'd like to use it for a class, I'd be happy to discuss arrangements that will let you mirror the content locally.
* Janos Blazi wrote: > LISP is for those who in some way like abstract thinking and this is a very > small group of people. A COBOL programmer on the other hand can write > thousands of lines of code a day.
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:37:24 +0200, Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote: > To say that something is esoteric means that it only those who are > initiated understand it.
So BASIC is esoteric then, right?
-- Take a look in Hagbard's World: | boxquote.el - "Boxed" text quoting. http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | binclock.el - emacs binary clock. http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes. emacs software, including.......| quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
> (1) > The whole thing started when my headmaster told me (I teach) that LISP had > fallen into oblivion and was dead. I then interrupted him and maintained > that LISP was a wonderful idiom and a lot of things are (still?) being done > in LISP. (I had done some EMACS LISP programming at the time.) > But I then looked at the shelves in the local bookshop that is a university > book shop and then a second look at the shelves in the library of the > university and I was negatively overwhelmed, as I could find almost nothing > on LISP (or in the library a lot of outdated stuff but no current books).
> (I found a German book on LISP in which the authors admitted that they had > been seriously thinking about covering CL but they still preferred Nils' > LISP instead, as ... In Nils' LISP you say "(de ...)" instead of "(defun > ...)" but de is probably better, as ... Usually a book is bad if the authors > are not conpetent. But these authors overflow with knowledge. And still, > something had gone wrong. )
Nils' Lisp is dead and never was really alive. The authors were just inventing their own dialect - how stupid. It was used one semester to torture students at the University of Hamburg.
"Stapelspeicher"? Der steht `pop stack' im Worterbuch, `Stapel' bedeutet `stack' und `Speicher' bedeutet `storage' (?!) Ich glaube sie meinen `_call_ stack'?
> "Stapelspeicher"? Der steht `pop stack' im Worterbuch, `Stapel' bedeutet `stack' und `Speicher' bedeutet `storage' (?!) > Ich glaube sie meinen `_call_ stack'?
* Janos Blazi | To say that something is esoteric means that it only those who are | initiated understand it. To say that LISP is esoteric is not a | complaint; it describes tha language as it is.
this is not the normal usage of the word, and needs constant explaining. the usual meaning of "esoteric" means "inaccessible".
| LISP is for those who in some way like abstract thinking and this is a | very small group of people. A COBOL programmer on the other hand can | write thousands of lines of code a day.
I fail to see the relevance of this comparison, which belittles fast coders and good programmers alike and seems to claim that abstract thinkers who can do practical work don't exist. none of this is news, however, since you have made a number of sweeping generalizations that make very little sense. I wish you'd stop to think about what you're saying. the broader issues you bring up with these generalization have mostly been seriously misguided, but just stating the generalization makes it very hard to respond to them intelligently.
Lisp is probably more attractive to people who introspect and value precision in their dealings with the world, while those who do neither will find many of its decisions needlessly cumbersome to understand. it's like being in need of cash and not deciding to rob someone because you're capable of considering the ethical and psychological implications of living on stolen money, compared to deciding not to rob someone because you believe you might get caught (the static typing crowd).
for what it's worth, my experience indicates that people who care about what they do and put serious emotional investment into doing a good job, will be incompatible with the practices involved in programming certain languages. I could not stomach the C++ paradigm that it not be possible to _understand_ what the precise semantics of a language construct -- you just have to humor the compilers and development systems and visually inspect how constructs and features pan out in practice. this paradigm is so different from what I have come to expect in the Common Lisp world that it is all but impossible to revert to Unix and C programming where you have to spend hours fiddling with half-documented, half-witted junk to get something right so you can trust it.
C/C++/Java/Perl/etc are for people who want to make things that work. Common Lisp is for peple who want to make things that don't break.
In my Larousse: "Ésoterique: (gr. esoterikos, réservé auc seuls adeptes). Qualification donnée, dans les écoles des ancien philosphes, á leur doctrine secrète. || Incompréhensible aux personnes non initiées..."
In dictionary.com: esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, a. Marked by secrecy or privacy; private; select; confidential; as, an esoteric purpose; an esoteric meeting.
esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, n. (Philos.) (a) An esoteric doctrine or treatise; esoteric philosophy; esoterics. (b) One who believes, or is an initiate, in esoteric doctrines or rites.
So I think this is pretty much the same as what I meant. I did not looked it up before. I had not consulted my LAROUSSE.
(2) You always attribute the worst possible sense tp my words and the you respond with personal attacks.
(3) "C/C++/Java/Perl/etc are for people who want to make things that work. Common Lisp is for peple who want to make things that don't break. "
So what kind of generalisation is this? And all the other stuff you have put forward?
(4) You said my first letter was stupid and boring. Well, the newsgroup is not your property. Neither is it my property. I came up with a question or with a group of questions that were very important to me. I received a lot of interesting, constructive and informative responses. And I received personal attacks (like the question whether I smoked (drugs I supposed)).
But it is your unquestioned right to get bored whenever you want to. Then please skip the thread. To judge by the numbers of letters that were published many people did not find this topic boring.
(5) When I visited the university bookshop in my own town and there was only one book on LISP and when after that I visited the big Harry Deutsch university bookshop in Frankfurt and I found NOT A SINGLE VOLUME on LISP there, I new that something must have gone wrong with LISP. And now I have found out the reason.
(6) I indeed questioned an attitude but I had not launched any personal attacks. Never. There is absolutely no excuse to respond with such. There is no excuse to use rude language ever.
I have not responded to you as I am a very peaceful man and I only wanted to be told about the current state of affaires.
Janos Blazi
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 3150208907886...@naggum.no...
> * Janos Blazi > | To say that something is esoteric means that it only those who are > | initiated understand it. To say that LISP is esoteric is not a > | complaint; it describes tha language as it is.
> this is not the normal usage of the word, and needs constant explaining. > the usual meaning of "esoteric" means "inaccessible".
> | LISP is for those who in some way like abstract thinking and this is a > | very small group of people. A COBOL programmer on the other hand can > | write thousands of lines of code a day.
> I fail to see the relevance of this comparison, which belittles fast > coders and good programmers alike and seems to claim that abstract > thinkers who can do practical work don't exist. none of this is news, > however, since you have made a number of sweeping generalizations that > make very little sense. I wish you'd stop to think about what you're > saying. the broader issues you bring up with these generalization have > mostly been seriously misguided, but just stating the generalization > makes it very hard to respond to them intelligently.
> Lisp is probably more attractive to people who introspect and value > precision in their dealings with the world, while those who do neither > will find many of its decisions needlessly cumbersome to understand. > it's like being in need of cash and not deciding to rob someone because > you're capable of considering the ethical and psychological implications > of living on stolen money, compared to deciding not to rob someone > because you believe you might get caught (the static typing crowd).
> for what it's worth, my experience indicates that people who care about > what they do and put serious emotional investment into doing a good job, > will be incompatible with the practices involved in programming certain > languages. I could not stomach the C++ paradigm that it not be possible > to _understand_ what the precise semantics of a language construct -- you > just have to humor the compilers and development systems and visually > inspect how constructs and features pan out in practice. this paradigm > is so different from what I have come to expect in the Common Lisp world > that it is all but impossible to revert to Unix and C programming where > you have to spend hours fiddling with half-documented, half-witted junk > to get something right so you can trust it.
> C/C++/Java/Perl/etc are for people who want to make things that work. > Common Lisp is for peple who want to make things that don't break.
* Janos Blazi | You always attribute the worst possible sense tp my words and the you | respond with personal attacks.
_this_ is not only a personal attack, it is completely unwarranted and falls squarely in the pattern you have established: generalizations that you post without any backing whatsoever, apart from your opinionating.
| You said my first letter was stupid and boring.
please stop lying about what's in the public record. I did not say that. if you can't differentiate between what you remember and what somebody actually said, at least be smart and honest enough to admit it to yourself -- that way you won't cause any hostility with people whom you malign with your careless lies.
| And I received personal attacks (like the question whether I smoked | (drugs I supposed)).
not from me you didn't. please do not lie, misrepresent, extrapolate, exaggarete, defame, or juxtapose information such that false, unwarranted conclusions are easier to make than warranted conclusions. please learn to exercise some precision in your communication. your hostility to my comments have that one source: I'm pointing out to you that you are full of vague, denigratory statements that are very hard to counter because they are principally devoid of counterable contents.
| When I visited the university bookshop in my own town and there was only one | book on LISP and when after that I visited the big Harry Deutsch university | bookshop in Frankfurt and I found NOT A SINGLE VOLUME on LISP there, I new | that something must have gone wrong with LISP. And now I have found out the | reason.
another conclusion is that something has gone wrong with the bookstores.
such is far more likely to be relevant, true, and also changeable (you simply ask them to order books and stir interest in Lisp for them) than that something has gone wrong with Lisp. your decision to conclude that something _must_ (no less!) have gone wrong with Lisp is what I challenge and you continue to refuse to recognize this challenge. I assume that is because you are completely unaware that you made that assumption to begin with, as you have been visibly unaware of all of your other assumptions that take the form of broad, unbacked generalizations. I find your lack of precision and unwillingness to be honest quite annoying. I'm sure you are not used to precision or you would not respond with such hostility.
| I indeed questioned an attitude but I had not launched any personal | attacks. Never. There is absolutely no excuse to respond with such. | There is no excuse to use rude language ever.
amazing. YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT I SAY, and you exaggerate by using such stupid terms as "always" and try to cast a characterization on me, too, as you have on so many else, including COBOL programmers and abstract thinkers. you have indeed engaged in offensive communication and you continue even in the messages where you deny it. and now rude language is your beef. my god, what's next? you're all form and no contents!
this is so typical of people who think something is wrong with Lisp. of course, their lack of introspection forbids them from seeing anything that causes them to mistakenly assume that what they see _must_ (sic!) be the only possible reason. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time dealing with people who make up their mind and then want the world to evolve around them, only to label anyone who tells them the world isn't so are rude to their poor little preconceptions.
| I have not responded to you as I am a very peaceful man and I only wanted | to be told about the current state of affaires.
then stop lying and misrepresenting others, stop presenting as facts that which is only conjecture on your part, and stop generalizing about that which you do not know, and you will _learn_ from others, if that is your true desire, which I don't think it is: you are most likely here to get an excuse not to use Lisp, as suggested by every negative conclusion you make. your incessant focus on the negative is what made your notes stand out to begin with. just stop the negative trend in your _own_ head, and the world will suddenly look as bright as it actually is, to you, too.
Lisp survives because Lisp people are able to see beyond mistaken German bookstores. Lisp can die _only_ to the extent that people are willing to blame it for something else that goes wrong in its vicinity. and Janos Blazi is a serious hazard to Lisp in that regard, because Lisp gets _all_ the blame when just about anything negative happens to him.
this is what's wrong with the Lisp world, and how to fix it: just get rid of the people who post negative drivel and find whoever wants to learn and take care of them and nuture them, one by one. the Lisp community is good at nurturing. it isn't good at dealing with crybabies. I don't think this is a problem for anybody but the crybabies.
Janos, you should note that I just answered a guy's questions to his full satisfaction, and that was because he wanted to solve a problem worth solving. you don't. you're whining and crying. I think you should go away, so this newsgroup and every other newsgroup and community can have room for positive, constructive people who want to do something fun and enjoyable with their lives. I'm seriouly upset with people like you, because for every negative, lie, misrepresentation, or false accusation posted in public, a lot of time is spent everywhere in trying to fix it by correcting such mistakes. that you consider it rude to ask you to go away and get upset is the least of my problems. at least if you do, I won't have to deal with a continued stream of negative drivel from you.
> You think that a COBOL programmer has the same problems as a LISP > programmer?
As far as I can tell (I am not a programmer), there are lots of problems *all* programmers have to deal with. Although COBOL programmers set out to solve different problems than Lispers, in the process they encounter a lot of (sub)problems they could handle more easily if they had Lisp's control structures, datatypes, etc.
A few months ago I wrote a silly thing in Informix 4GL, a very simple, Basic-like language for database applications. The result would've been shorter and much less clumsy (and the process of writing it more fun!) if I'd had things (multiple values, closures, local functions, optional/keyword arguments,...) available which are natural for anyone slightly exposed to Lisp. `Simple language' doesn't mean `simple programs'. On the contrary.
Erik Naggum wrote: > * Janos Blazi > | You always attribute the worst possible sense tp my words and the you > | respond with personal attacks.
> _this_ is not only a personal attack, it is completely unwarranted and > falls squarely in the pattern you have established: generalizations that > you post without any backing whatsoever, apart from your opinionating.
> | You said my first letter was stupid and boring.
> please stop lying about what's in the public record. I did not [deleted]
Janos Blazi wrote: > (1) > Now I have looked ip the word "esoteric":
> In my Larousse: > "Ésoterique: (gr. esoterikos, réservé auc seuls adeptes). Qualification > donnée, dans les écoles des ancien philosphes, á leur doctrine secrète. || > Incompréhensible aux personnes non initiées..."
Well, Lisp wasn't studied in the schools of the ancient philosophers, and it's not a secret doctrine. It's certainly incomprehensible to people who aren't initiated. So is German, or English, or Norwegian, or BASIC.
> In dictionary.com: > esoteric \Es`o*ter"ic\, a. Marked by secrecy or privacy; private; select; > confidential; as, an esoteric purpose; an esoteric meeting.
Lisp is the subject of several books, various national and international standards, a few Usenet newsgroups, and some web sites. So it's hardly "marked by secrecy or privacy", or "private", or confidential. I suppose it might be "select", but no one is stopping you being a Lisper if you want to.
> So I think this is pretty much the same as what I meant. I did not looked it > up before. I had not consulted my LAROUSSE.
If it's what you meant, then what you meant wasn't a true description of Lisp.
> (2) > You always attribute the worst possible sense tp my words and the you > respond with personal attacks.
Yes, Erik tends to do this to people he perceives are saying stupid things. On the other hand, he happens to be one of the smartest people in c.l.l, and when he says something is stupid he's usually right, so you may find it's worth your while to get past the harshness and take some notice of the points he makes.
> (4) > You said my first letter was stupid and boring.
He didn't. He said arguing about whether Lisp is dead is stupid and boring, and he's right. He said this in response to your bizarre question "Can ANYBODY answer my questions?" -- bizarre because it came after *lots* of people had answered your questions, in considerable detail.
> But it is your unquestioned right to get bored whenever you want to. Then > please skip the thread. > To judge by the numbers of letters that were published many people did not > find this topic boring.
I find the topic of the alleged death of Lisp boring. But I replied because (1) I like helping people and (2) when I see something good (like Lisp) being attacked, I like to defend it.
> (5) > When I visited the university bookshop in my own town and there was only one > book on LISP and when after that I visited the big Harry Deutsch university > bookshop in Frankfurt and I found NOT A SINGLE VOLUME on LISP there, I new > that something must have gone wrong with LISP. And now I have found out the > reason.
You think the Harry Deutsch bookshop in Frankfurt doesn't have any Lisp books because Erik Naggum is rude sometimes? I don't understand.
-- Gareth McCaughan Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com sig under construction
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote: +--------------- | C/C++/Java/Perl/etc are for people who want to make things that work. | Common Lisp is for peple who want to make things that don't break. +---------------
Ahhhh!!! Finally! A pithy counterargument to "Worse Is Better"!
-Rob
----- Rob Warnock, 8L-846 r...@sgi.com Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/ Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. FAX: 650-933-0511 Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
> > * Janos Blazi > > | You always attribute the worst possible sense tp my words and the you > > | respond with personal attacks.
> > _this_ is not only a personal attack, it is completely unwarranted and > > falls squarely in the pattern you have established: generalizations that > > you post without any backing whatsoever, apart from your opinionating.
> > | You said my first letter was stupid and boring.
> > please stop lying about what's in the public record. I did not [deleted]
> Yes, Erik tends to do this to people he perceives are saying > stupid things. On the other hand, he happens to be one of the > smartest people in c.l.l, and when he says something is stupid > he's usually right, so you may find it's worth your while to > get past the harshness and take some notice of the points he > makes.
So you mean that while his words sometimes may lack the decency some outsiders expect, the end justifies the means. And as he is so smart, if he tells me that I am stupid then I should take that seriously as them I am probably really stupid.
> > (4) > > You said my first letter was stupid and boring.
> He didn't. He said arguing about whether Lisp is dead is stupid > and boring, and he's right.
Yes, and this is the same as saying that I am stupid and boring. It is not always the same but it is the sam in this context.
> > But it is your unquestioned right to get bored whenever you want to. Then > > please skip the thread. > > To judge by the numbers of letters that were published many people did not > > find this topic boring.
> I find the topic of the alleged death of Lisp boring. But I > replied because (1) I like helping people and (2) when I see > something good (like Lisp) being attacked, I like to defend it.
O.K. There have always been heretics. When we look into the history of our religion we see that heretics made the CHURCH clarify their positions and the CHURCH was stronger after the heretics were defeated. (And as a byproduct, the heretics were eliminated, but this is another story.)
> > (5) > > When I visited the university bookshop in my own town and there was only one > > book on LISP and when after that I visited the big Harry Deutsch university > > bookshop in Frankfurt and I found NOT A SINGLE VOLUME on LISP there, I new > > that something must have gone wrong with LISP. And now I have found out the > > reason.
> You think the Harry Deutsch bookshop in Frankfurt doesn't have any > Lisp books because Erik Naggum is rude sometimes? I don't understand.
No. I think, that big and great bookshop in Frankfurt has no books on LISP as the books are not asked for. In Germany there are some murky books on LISP and you cannot get the classics. I found a copy of Graham in my bookshop but it was a German translation which I do not buy on principle. Sometimes the translator thinks that he can "improve" the book. Ordering the original English Edition would take 8 weeks. I have ordered the German version from the library of the university though.
(I'll visit Berlin next week and I'll take a look there at the big Kierpert store that is atleast twice bigger than the one in Frankfurt. I could not compete with the wonderful FOYLES though :):):) )
And this means that in the interest in LISP has almost vanished. And you can major in computer science from a German university (including my own unversity) without even having been told about LISP or a similiar language. (Well, you can major without proving that you can write programs at all in any language, but this is a different story.)
Janos Blazi wrote: > YES, I AM SORRY. > Janos Blazi, also called the "LISP killer" :)
> [deleted]
Thanks!
I rather enjoyed this thread (especially the post about Nils' Lisp and the "Stapelspeicher defekt" error) although things were getting a little heated toward the end. I'm hoping this is the end but you never know...
In Seattle, one will typically find three different Lisp books in stock at a large bookstore (_CLTL_, _Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming_ (PAIP), and On Lisp). The books are current and well-written so I think Lisp will be around for a while.
If you cannot teach Lisp in your class, perhaps you could have the class write a Lisp interpreter in C as a project. That may be a bit much to ask of students at the pre-college level but you would be the better judge of this.
Obviously, this will most likely be my last post on this thread since I think it is time to move on. If the Lisp in C idea interests you, drop me an email.
So, there are no books on Lisp in big bookstores in Framkfurt (or somewhere else in Germany) and in the library of the University.
While I admit that the lack of good published Lisp books on the shelves of bookstores worldwide is a problem (Barnes and Nobles on Astor Place in NY e.g. or on Shuttuck in Berkeley don't have much, but Cody's on Telegraph in Berkeley carries the full array of "classics"; Feltrinelli's on Piazza Argentina in Rome has nil), I perceive this as a problem of the (Lisp) community as a whole and of the status of the overall available "greater Lisp programming environment". This has nothing to do with your will or need to learn (Common) Lisp and widen your programming horizons. If more people start using Lisp, more books will start to appear on the shelves of the bookstores. The opposite is not necessarily true.
It is certainly much easier to find *a lot* of books on Java and C/C++. If you looked at the Ada landscape, the situation - bookwise - would not be much different from Lisp. It is also true that many of the books you find about Java and C/C++ are bad. I only have three C++ books: Lippman's, Stroustroup's and Copliens's. They are what you really need. Period. For Java, it is enough to peruse the on-line documentation.
Now. CL has many online resources, including Steele's "Common Lisp: the Language" and the full ANSI standard. The other books (Graham's, Norvig's and SICP) are avilable through Amazon or other Internet booksellers in way less that 8 weeks (and usually cheaper than at your bookstore).
So much for book availability.
As per your difficulties dealing with some of the attack "ad personam" which you have suffered, please try to understand the following. Every three months or so, somebody wanders on comp.lang.lisp and sends a message with the title "Is Lisp dead?". I am serious. Check out dejanews. Please understand that the people who write here *are* zealots when it comes to (Common) Lisp. Having said so, I ask for forgiveness on your part. You basically generated a Pavlovian reaction in the news group. This reaction takes many forms: some indeed unpleasant.
What will happen now? Will you throw in the towel and keep thinking that (Common) Lisp is dead and that this newsgroup is a cult? Or will you fire up Emacs (you are using Emacs, aren't you? :) ), and start writing you multiply dispatching methods? (Something you cannot do in other languages). I you you'll choose the second alternative. It's good for you.
Cheers
-- Marco Antoniotti =========================================== PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26 http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
