On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive > fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and > more then Lisp's turn should come at some point. > Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would > you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are we speaking about?
(1) The general public (use by hobby programmers, for scripting, mentioning in blogs, boards, magazines) (2) Start ups (people use lisp to start a business) (3) Major corporations (companies using lisp for production software products, eg. ITA)
(1-2) are of interest, major corporations tend let smaller players figure out new technology before they adopt them. (2) generally follows from (1): People use experience gained in hobby and OSS programming to found their business. So we look at (1) in more detail:
I believe the barrier to entry is too high here, and I think the major reason is that the lisp world is so pluralistic: Which implementation do I use? Which IDE? Which libraries? Where do I get what? (Unfortunately) people expect there to be one way to do things, i.e. they expect to go to lisp.org, "click here to download", double-click the installer, select "example-1" and first launch, click "run", and look at their first own weblog :-)
As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are the libraries? (Obviously I figured it out, but it took me two weeks or so. I was set up with Java/Eclipse in 15 minutes). I hear you guys cry out: "But there is implementation X that does A and implementation Y that does B and C. Choice is what is great about lisp!". I know. Now go and reread this paragraph.
In conclusion, I believe that the lisp boom won't come before there is a canonic open source implementation and a canonic repository for libraries. I believe all the material is there: SBCL would make a great basis, Eclipse/Cusp a newbie-friendly IDE (which already comes with a few libs), we have a number of great libraries, and the wholes (currently I see Ajax/web app and GUI) will hopefully be filled soon.
Now the question is, of course, whether this is what we want. After reading c.l.l for a year, I'd say: no. There won't be sufficient community support for a "one corrent solution" approach, so lisp will stay pluralistic and confusing. On the other had, those who make it through the first two months or so are rewarded with a great system. And, I think, among those that have the endurance, a lisp boom has already begun. But it won't be the ruby-on-rails kind of boom.
In article <163e1d2b-f338-45ab-a8f6-e1ff95008...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive > fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and > more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would > you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
I don't think we will see a Lisp 'boom'. But I think the slow, but steady growth will continue in the next years. Plus, some people might be bored with their current programming tools (it is a fashion industry) and will look for new ways to do the same as before and write about it. I hope we won't see too many of those...
In article <op.uak6d8s5x6i8pv@babyfoot>, "Peter Hildebrandt" <peter.hildebra...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> In conclusion, I believe that the lisp boom won't come before there is a > canonic open source implementation and a canonic repository for > libraries. I believe all the material is there: SBCL would make a great > basis, Eclipse/Cusp a newbie-friendly IDE (which already comes with a few > libs), we have a number of great libraries, and the wholes (currently I > see Ajax/web app and GUI) will hopefully be filled soon.
> Now the question is, of course, whether this is what we want. After > reading c.l.l for a year, I'd say: no. There won't be sufficient > community support for a "one corrent solution" approach, so lisp will stay > pluralistic and confusing. On the other had, those who make it through > the first two months or so are rewarded with a great system. And, I > think, among those that have the endurance, a lisp boom has already > begun. But it won't be the ruby-on-rails kind of boom.
I have already seen one Lisp boom (80s) - mostly fueled by US military spending. Personally I'd like to see a more civilian approach which is also sustainable over a longer period of time. That first Lisp boom ended abruptly and left a huge crater. I'm also pro-choice and for competition - I don't like a monoculture. ;-)
Peter Hildebrandt wrote: > On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras > <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point. >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
> I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article > about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing > to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are > we speaking about?
And define "close". :)
Also, can we count Java (gc at least, and anonymous classes (pwuahahaha)) and Python (interactive and crappy GC at least) and Ruby (dynamic and blocks at least) and Groovy as being part of the Lisp boom? Because in the end it is the ideas that matter (and have already boomed), the rest will follow.
What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that would be funny, but not surprising. Demming was ignored by Detroit but listened to by Japan, who then kicked Detroit's ass precisely with Demming's ideas.
The good news is my passport is good for ten years now thanx to ECLM.
Meanwhile, I think OpenAIR could do for CL (and Cells) what Rails did for Ruby. Hopefully Andy is making progress.
And watch out for my Algebra app. Early results indicate it works surprisingly well with unhappy Algebra students, and Algebra has become the line in the sand for math education in the US. If we get another success story (here or with ITA) look out. If you thought Paul Graham made a lot of noise, you haven't been clicking thru my sig.
Given OpenLaszlo, FlapJax, Trellis, and Adobe Adam all doing Cells without Lisp, to me the fun question is who will win first, Cells or Lisp.
Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes: > If it's true that as we progress in time, successive > fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and > more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would > you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
It seems like there are more meetings lately. I've been trying to keep track with a Google calendar here:
Spiros Bousbouras wrote: > If it's true that as we progress in time, successive > fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and > more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would > you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, not for the language this time, but for a few libraries: comm, stream, unicode, thread.
Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
On 3 Mai, 21:34, Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive > fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and > more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would > you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think definietly not.
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, > not for the language this time, but for a few libraries: > comm, stream, unicode, thread.
Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such > an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, >> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries: >> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words, methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such >> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
> >>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive > >>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and > >>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
> >>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would > >>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
> >> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, > >> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries: > >> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
> > Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
> unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words, > methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
> >> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such > >> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
> > Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
> Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure > you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
> > kt
dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham that started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million dollars in 1998. Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
globalrev wrote: > On 4 Maj, 06:24, vanekl <va...@acd.net> wrote:
>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>vanekl wrote:
>>>>Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>>>If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >>>>>fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >>>>>more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>>>Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >>>>>you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>>>IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, >>>>not for the language this time, but for a few libraries: >>>>comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>>>Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>>unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words, >>methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>>>Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such >>>>an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>>>Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
>>Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure >>you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
>>>kt
> dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham > that > started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million > dollars in 1998. > Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
He understood, he just could not handle having pointed out to him the delightful irony of asking for money to help make Lisp usable from someone who got rich USING Lisp thirteen years ago.
But what should we expect from someone who says "You've had too much to drink, drive safely."?
>>>>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >>>>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >>>>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >>>>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>>>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, >>>>> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries: >>>>> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>>>> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>>> unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words, >>> methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>>>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such >>>>> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>>>> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I >>>> think.
>>> Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure >>> you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
>>>> kt
>> dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham >> that >> started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million >> dollars in 1998. >> Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
> He understood, he just could not handle having pointed out to him the > delightful irony of asking for money to help make Lisp usable from > someone who got rich USING Lisp thirteen years ago.
> But what should we expect from someone who says "You've had too much to > drink, drive safely."?
> :)
> kenny
Gawd, next time I'll wink and add 10 smiley faces so the slower members of the group can catch up.
On May 4, 2:44 pm, Majorinc Kazimir <fa...@false.false> wrote:
> I do not think so. Lisp is significantly harder to learn than, > say, Ruby or Lua, and it provides less advantages to average > programmer than ever.
If you'd said "beginner programmer" then I'd agree that there are probably easier ways to learn programming than Common Lisp although even this is partly due to the confusion over what to download rather than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not sufficiently interested in using more powerful programming tools then I think it's hard to make the argument that Lisp should be dumbed down for them. As you point out, there are other languages which excel in this area.
På Sun, 04 May 2008 05:08:43 +0200, skrev <scholz.lot...@gmail.com>:
> On 3 Mai, 21:34, Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think > definietly not.
Of course my LispWorks system supports all of the above.. It does not do 'symmetric' multiprocessing if that is what you mean. I might add that none of these things are a part of the C standard either. That hasn't prevented C from being a popular language. Common Lisp is just a common denominator for Lisp's. Commercial versions like LispWorks and ACL come with large libraries in addition to ANSI Common Lisp. As it is - it is strong enough to write real applications today.
>>> On 4 Maj, 06:24, vanekl <va...@acd.net> wrote:
>>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>> vanekl wrote:
>>>>>> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>>>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >>>>>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >>>>>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>>>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >>>>>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>>>>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process, >>>>>> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries: >>>>>> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>>>>> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>>>> unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words, >>>> methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>>>>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such >>>>>> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>>>>> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I >>>>> think.
>>>> Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure >>>> you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
>>>>> kt
>>> dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham >>> that >>> started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million >>> dollars in 1998. >>> Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
>> He understood, he just could not handle having pointed out to him the >> delightful irony of asking for money to help make Lisp usable from >> someone who got rich USING Lisp thirteen years ago.
>> But what should we expect from someone who says "You've had too much >> to drink, drive safely."?
>> :)
>> kenny
> Gawd, next time I'll wink and add 10 smiley faces so the slower members > of the group can catch up.
Oh. I see. Yeah, your overall drift did elude me.
Anyway, I see elsewhere you will be in the vanguard of CL's drive to world domination contributing to (some) Grand Unifying Lisp Web Thingy, so send along a bit of your clothing and we'll train the hounds on you as a "friendly".
> Peter Hildebrandt wrote: > > On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras > > <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive > >> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and > >> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point. > >> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would > >> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
> > I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article > > about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing > > to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are > > we speaking about?
> And define "close". :)
> Also, can we count Java (gc at least, and anonymous classes > (pwuahahaha)) and Python (interactive and crappy GC at least) and Ruby > (dynamic and blocks at least) and Groovy as being part of the Lisp boom? > Because in the end it is the ideas that matter (and have already > boomed), the rest will follow.
> What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and > standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that > would be funny, but not surprising. Demming was ignored by Detroit but > listened to by Japan, who then kicked Detroit's ass precisely with > Demming's ideas.
> The good news is my passport is good for ten years now thanx to ECLM.
> Meanwhile, I think OpenAIR could do for CL (and Cells) what Rails did > for Ruby. Hopefully Andy is making progress.
> And watch out for my Algebra app. Early results indicate it works > surprisingly well with unhappy Algebra students, and Algebra has become > the line in the sand for math education in the US. If we get another > success story (here or with ITA) look out. If you thought Paul Graham > made a lot of noise, you haven't been clicking thru my sig.
> Given OpenLaszlo, FlapJax, Trellis, and Adobe Adam all doing Cells > without Lisp, to me the fun question is who will win first, Cells or Lisp.
philip.armit...@gmail.com writes: > On May 4, 2:44 pm, Majorinc Kazimir <fa...@false.false> wrote: >> I do not think so. Lisp is significantly harder to learn than, >> say, Ruby or Lua, and it provides less advantages to average >> programmer than ever.
> If you'd said "beginner programmer" then I'd agree that there are > probably easier ways to learn programming than Common Lisp although > even this is partly due to the confusion over what to download rather > than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's > less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not > sufficiently interested in using more powerful programming tools then > I think it's hard to make the argument that Lisp should be dumbed down > for them. As you point out, there are other languages which excel in > this area.
Agreed. I'm also not convinced that Ruby and Lua are a big step towards closing the gap to good Common Lisp implementations - especially in the performance area CL kicks ass, and Ruby for example is mostly "just" a cleaned-up Perl (and Perl also kicks Ruby's ass in performance). And I am apparently one of the few people here who think Ruby is quite pretty and likes Perl.
Besides, *fuck* the average programmer. Average programmers should be in middle management where they can't mess up the code base (much).
>>>>If it's true that as we progress in time, successive >>>>fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and >>>>more then Lisp's turn should come at some point. >>>>Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would >>>>you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>>I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article >>>about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing >>>to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are >>>we speaking about?
>>And define "close". :)
>>Also, can we count Java (gc at least, and anonymous classes >>(pwuahahaha)) and Python (interactive and crappy GC at least) and Ruby >>(dynamic and blocks at least) and Groovy as being part of the Lisp boom? >>Because in the end it is the ideas that matter (and have already >>boomed), the rest will follow.
>>What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and >>standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that >>would be funny, but not surprising. Demming was ignored by Detroit but >>listened to by Japan, who then kicked Detroit's ass precisely with >>Demming's ideas.
>>The good news is my passport is good for ten years now thanx to ECLM.
>>Meanwhile, I think OpenAIR could do for CL (and Cells) what Rails did >>for Ruby. Hopefully Andy is making progress.
>>And watch out for my Algebra app. Early results indicate it works >>surprisingly well with unhappy Algebra students, and Algebra has become >>the line in the sand for math education in the US. If we get another >>success story (here or with ITA) look out. If you thought Paul Graham >>made a lot of noise, you haven't been clicking thru my sig.
>>Given OpenLaszlo, FlapJax, Trellis, and Adobe Adam all doing Cells >>without Lisp, to me the fun question is who will win first, Cells or Lisp.
> Thankfully for Allegro and Lispworks, Kenny isn't doing their > forecasting.
Hunh? This must be my second misconstrual in as many days -- I just forecasted good things for commercial Lisps.
Corrollary: I do not think Franz went to Japan by mistake.[1]
But whatever you meant, you are right: they know better than I ever will how well Lisp is doing. My only gauge is this NG... omigod! I have become an optimist! They may not let me back into NYC. :(
In article <daadad58-b292-4a26-a63f-35ec24af3450 @k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, philip.armit...@gmail.com says...
> than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's > less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not
Average programmer is say, one who mostly rely on available libraries and only occasionally implement complex algorithms on his own. His programs might be large but they are mostly made of simple pieces that need to be connected together without bugs. I think abstract programming languages provide little advantage for that kind of job; their advantages show mainly if one has to develop and test many original and complicated algorithms - and needs for that decrease due to growing libraries, databases etc.
Majorinc Kazimir <fa...@false.false> writes: > In article <87r6chgbi5....@zeekat.nl>, jo...@zeekat.nl says...
>> Besides, *fuck* the average programmer.
> Oh my god! Average programmer is of a wrong sex, and even then > he is overweighted with fat glasses. I'd rather go back to C++!
Hahaha. Anyway, I don't mind average programmers. As long as they know what they're doing and stay the hell out of my code (unless I'm the boss and can tell them how to get better, and fire them if they don't - I'm not arrogant about much, but I trust my programming instincts).
|
