> * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > | The syntax is harder to learn. From the sounds of it this isn't > | uncommon. I don't mean to say that the syntax is bad, and obviously > | Lispers have grown to like it. But for me, it is harder to learn.
> But it is harder to learn becuase you resist it! We all know this. Yes, > it is not uncommon to resist change. Lots of dumb people resist changes > of all kinds, whether they will benefit from them or not, in fact more > often than not, they resist changes they /will/ benefit greatly from. > What is so tragic about people who keep insisting that things are hard to > learn is that saying makes it so. Have you ever heard of a person who > admits to thinking "I can'to do this!" over and over until he finally > succeeded? No? I know I have not. Why not? What is the #1 advice they > give to athletes who want to win so badly they are willing to abuse their > body to the extreme, to experience more pain than they were ever meant to, > to break every reasonable and rational limit to human performance? To > get into the winning mindset. Not only /can/ they beat the odds against > them, they /have to/. Not that I want you to go overboard and ignore the > finely tuned instructions that are embedded in our finely tuned bodies > that pain means a mistake, but you should not yield to resistance if you > want to succeed. Learning is hard work. Succeeding is hard work. If > you only plan to do what you find easy to do in your life, you /will/ go > nuts in no time. Boredom kills people, literally. Every bored moment of > your life is an experience of what death is like. If it is hard to learn, > that means you have to use your brain and concentrate to succeed. This > has "good for you" written all over it. If Java was easy to learn, you > would go mad if you were to program in it for real. As I have said on > several occasions: Life is too long to be good at C++, meaning that if > you spent the decade it takes to become good at it, you would have wasted > the opportunity to be good at something worth being good at, and you > would have to spend the rest of your miserable life programming in C++. > Yes, scream. Now, being good at Java takes the average Joe a good while, > and he can expect to use it for long enough to both be worth it and to be > worth more than the alternatives. But if you found Java easy to learn, > you are not the average Joe. Java is not for you. The only things worth > becoming good at are things that are hard to learn, but not all things > that are hard to learn are worth being good at. The only thing you know > is that if it is too easy to learn, it is not worth wasting brain time on > it. Quit whining about how hard Common Lisp is to learn. Start whining > about how easy Java was and how much you hate wasting your time on the > easy stuff: Yell "BOOORING!" at it and "Gimme something my dog can't do!"
Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me to say Lisp is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn it, but writing it is hard.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> Lisp is generally 3GL, but with its higher capabilities it can be used > to create 4GL languages that fit within the s-exp syntax. I do not > think the definition of 5GL is accurate in the link (I do not think anyone > knows what a 5GL actually should be).
By definition, Prolog is the 5th generation language. And maybe things like Sisal, Val and Id.
Generations were originally used for hardware only; we got up to 4th generation (valves, transistors, ICs, VLIC, dataflow). Then the Japanese announced their 5th generation project, with Prolog to run on the hardware (Lisp was obviously unacceptable because it's American) and then various soi-disant gurus decided to classify languages by them. 4th generation languages seemed to form a clearly defined group of languages designed to replace COBOL.
> Wade
Le Hibou -- Dalinian: Lisp. Java. Which one sounds sexier? RevAaron: Definitely Lisp. Lisp conjures up images of hippy coders, drugs, sex, and rock & roll. Late nights at Berkeley, coding in Lisp fueled by LSD. Java evokes a vision of a stereotypical nerd, with no life or social skills.
Just fired it up to check. (I usually use ACL.) Yes, the LW for Windows editor does all the good stuff in re making editing Lisp /easier/ than other languages. It also uses color for highlighting keywords vs comments vs etc. Looks a little busy to my taste.
Uh-oh. Is LW what you have been using and struggling with? Houston, we have a problem.
>>Right now you are just showing us how close-minded you are.
> no, not close-minded, just exasperated! I never said I don't like the > language, I'm just finding it harder to learn.
Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language. Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your mantra is "letting go".
--
kenny tilton clinisys, inc --------------------------------------------------------------- ""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."" Elwood P. Dowd
> Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me to say Lisp > is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn it, but writing it is > hard.
It grows on you.
Other people have said it in this thread, but get a good editor. I'm not sure what you're using, but I use emacs, which is very nice for lisp, and has several nice lisp modes. vim-users probably have something equally good.
I don't know if you know emacs; it takes some practice to get used to it, but it's worth the effort.
The editor minimally has to have parenthesis matching and flashing. In your editor, when you type a parenthesis, does it immediately highlight the matching parenthesis? If not, no wonder it's driving you crazy. If it does, and you're worried about thet parentheses, you just have to type parentheses until the one you want to close off blinks. Or delete the last close paren and re-type it, looking for the match. (emacs gives you many more tools than this, but a basic programmer's editor should at least do this much.)
Personally, I had to use Scheme in an AI course, and I hated it then. After a bit more thinking about things, I started to like it quite a bit. Then I slowly grew frustrated with re-inventing the wheel and discovered Common Lisp. Give it some time.
As other people have said, real human beings read lisp code by the indentation, not by the parentheses. I've not seen you post any code; are you using standard indentation? It really does help.
* arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> | wow, you are weird.
Wow, you did not get the mesasge. Fascinating. You really must be hard of learning and devoid of ability to find humor in anything, to boot.
| What an insulting reply.
No, this is an insulting reply. I really thought you were able to think. I keep hoping for that in people. It is, however, entirely unpredictable when someone will wake up from their comatose state and start to use their brain. Sometimes it happens when they are subjected to something that is out of the ordinary. That did not work with you at all. Instead, you seek solace in groups of people who are as unable to think as yourself. Some people congregate for things they have in common, others for things they lack in common. This is generally a newsgroup for people who have an apperciation for Lisp in common, not a newsgroup for people who lack such an appreciation.
| I have so far taken to programming like a duck to water.
This is good.
| Unfortunately, the water in Lisp is a little boggy, and I KNOW I'm not | the only one having this problem.
This is the kind of idiotic judgmentalism that marks you hopeless. Only when you shed this stupid prejudice will you actually learn to program.
| I don't understand why you guys are all so defensive of Lisp.
We do not understand why you pathetic whiners come to this forum and expect to be treated nicely when all you do is talk negatively about the things we are fond of and actually come here because we appreciate.
You are the transgressor here. You are the whining non-thinking loser who does not get the message. You keep whining instead of working to solve your problem. You are the one who blames your tools, not your own attitude and competence. Why /did/ you expect anyone to accept this as normal human behavior?
| Obviously lispers are forever defending their case, and that many others | in the world are having the same problem.
You come into a fine restaurant and refuse to read the menu but ask for hamburgers because that is what you grew up with. You do not like to have an unintelligible wine list offered to you, because you have no clue what anything on it means and you could get a whole truckload of milk shakes for the price of just one half-bottle of that french-looking stuff. When you are asked if you would like any of the entrées, you quip that you already know which way you came in and you cannot understand why you cannot order the apple pie for dessert at the same time as the McChicken. And you wonder why you people are staring at you and quietly think you make a spectacle of yourself, not the other way around?
| I never said I didn't like lisp, I'm just sure I like the people who use | it though.
The maitre'd has kindly suggested that you leave the establishment and find yourself a restaurant or hot dog stand more suitable to your tastes.
Welcome back in a few years. We would like to serve your mature needs.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <3244412771159...@naggum.no>, e...@naggum.no says...
> * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > | wow, you are weird.
> Wow, you did not get the mesasge. Fascinating. You really must be hard > of learning and devoid of ability to find humor in anything, to boot.
yep, you are still weird.
> | What an insulting reply.
> No, this is an insulting reply. I really thought you were able to think. > I keep hoping for that in people. It is, however, entirely unpredictable > when someone will wake up from their comatose state and start to use > their brain. Sometimes it happens when they are subjected to something > that is out of the ordinary. That did not work with you at all. Instead, > you seek solace in groups of people who are as unable to think as yourself. > Some people congregate for things they have in common, others for things > they lack in common. This is generally a newsgroup for people who have > an apperciation for Lisp in common, not a newsgroup for people who lack > such an appreciation.
Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the start. I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying to seek understanding. All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks like you flaming me, trying to tell me I dumb. I'm not, and all I could do is defend myself. Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
> | I have so far taken to programming like a duck to water.
> This is good.
> | Unfortunately, the water in Lisp is a little boggy, and I KNOW I'm not > | the only one having this problem.
> This is the kind of idiotic judgmentalism that marks you hopeless. Only > when you shed this stupid prejudice will you actually learn to program.
No, it's called defending myself following a barage of critism. Others in the same thread have already admitted that the parentheses in lisp can be difficult. I realise that it will get easier with time, and I may even learn to like it. But you need to stop denying that the problem doesn't exist - it does.
> | I don't understand why you guys are all so defensive of Lisp.
> We do not understand why you pathetic whiners come to this forum and > expect to be treated nicely when all you do is talk negatively about the > things we are fond of and actually come here because we appreciate.
I never came here whining. You need to learn how to read. Why don't you start at the top.
> You are the transgressor here. You are the whining non-thinking loser > who does not get the message. You keep whining instead of working to > solve your problem. You are the one who blames your tools, not your own > attitude and competence. Why /did/ you expect anyone to accept this as > normal human behavior?
hmmm.......did I blame my tools did I. Your starting to state things that are not true. Learn how to read.
> | Obviously lispers are forever defending their case, and that many others > | in the world are having the same problem.
> You come into a fine restaurant and refuse to read the menu but ask for > hamburgers because that is what you grew up with. You do not like to > have an unintelligible wine list offered to you, because you have no clue > what anything on it means and you could get a whole truckload of milk > shakes for the price of just one half-bottle of that french-looking stuff. > When you are asked if you would like any of the entrées, you quip that > you already know which way you came in and you cannot understand why you > cannot order the apple pie for dessert at the same time as the McChicken. > And you wonder why you people are staring at you and quietly think you > make a spectacle of yourself, not the other way around?
Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate McDonalds, and I enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in the Barossa Valley. What your talking is just trash.
> | I never said I didn't like lisp, I'm just sure I like the people who use > | it though.
> The maitre'd has kindly suggested that you leave the establishment and > find yourself a restaurant or hot dog stand more suitable to your tastes.
> Welcome back in a few years. We would like to serve your mature needs.
Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard of that.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language. > Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your > mantra is "letting go".
No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window, then you have to enter the functions all over again.
You guys gotta understand, I'm not putting down Lisp, I'm trying to get information. All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> > Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language. > > Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your > > mantra is "letting go".
> No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of > why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we > create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you > just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window, > then you have to enter the functions all over again.
arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> writes: > In article <3244412771159...@naggum.no>, e...@naggum.no says... > > Some people congregate for things they have in common, > > others for things they lack in common. This is generally a > > newsgroup for people who have an apperciation for Lisp in > > common, not a newsgroup for people who lack such an > > appreciation.
> Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the > start. I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying > to seek understanding. All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks > like you flaming me, trying to tell me I dumb. I'm not, and all > I could do is defend myself.
Wrong.
> Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
Yes -- because if you act like a moron making a complete ass of yourself and very smart people take the time to tell you so, the /mature/ reaction would be to ask yourself what you did wrong and how you could do better in the future -- /listen/ to them. Instead you chose to behave like an annoying teenager -- whining and defending yourself.
> > You come into a fine restaurant and refuse to read the menu but ask for > > hamburgers because that is what you grew up with. You do not like to > > have an unintelligible wine list offered to you, because you have no clue > > what anything on it means and you could get a whole truckload of milk > > shakes for the price of just one half-bottle of that french-looking stuff. > > When you are asked if you would like any of the entrées, you quip that > > you already know which way you came in and you cannot understand why you > > cannot order the apple pie for dessert at the same time as the McChicken. > > And you wonder why you people are staring at you and quietly think you > > make a spectacle of yourself, not the other way around?
> Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate > McDonalds, and I enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in > the Barossa Valley. What your talking is just trash.
Heh, interesting: You recognize that it is an analogy but have apparently not really understood yet what an analogy actually is :-)
> > Welcome back in a few years. We would like to serve your > > mature needs.
> Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard > of that.
There are a lot of stupid things hidden behind acronyms. And using the pronoun ``we'' here was quite correct, I think.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
> > Again, you are weird. Besides, it isn't quite accurate of me to say Lisp > > is hard to learn. It is easy to actually learn it, but writing it is > > hard.
> It grows on you.
> Other people have said it in this thread, but get a good editor. I'm > not sure what you're using, but I use emacs, which is very nice for > lisp, and has several nice lisp modes. vim-users probably have > something equally good.
I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can be confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for 'cond' in the wrong spot, for example:
(defun myFunction (myList) (cond ((listp myList) (myfunction (cdr (myList)))) (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here
instead of:
(defun myFunction (myList) (cond ((listp myList) (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here (t nil))
I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in the wrong spot.
> I don't know if you know emacs; it takes some practice to get used to > it, but it's worth the effort.
I've never seen emacs. Is it free, can I download it?
> The editor minimally has to have parenthesis matching and flashing. > In your editor, when you type a parenthesis, does it immediately > highlight the matching parenthesis? If not, no wonder it's driving > you crazy. If it does, and you're worried about thet parentheses, you > just have to type parentheses until the one you want to close off > blinks. Or delete the last close paren and re-type it, looking for > the match. (emacs gives you many more tools than this, but a basic > programmer's editor should at least do this much.)
> Personally, I had to use Scheme in an AI course, and I hated it then. > After a bit more thinking about things, I started to like it quite a > bit. Then I slowly grew frustrated with re-inventing the wheel and > discovered Common Lisp. Give it some time.
> As other people have said, real human beings read lisp code by the > indentation, not by the parentheses. I've not seen you post any code; > are you using standard indentation? It really does help.
This is part of the code for the last assignment I did. This part of the program is not the requirements for the final practical, since someone in another thread ("hi, I am trying to make some code that does this") asked how to get the identical prac working. I'm not about to post my code for this fella.
;Practical 2 - Pattern matcher
(defun match (pattern1 pattern2) (cond ((or (atom pattern1) (atom pattern2)) (match-atom pattern1 pattern2)) ;if the next atom in pattern1 is * ((and (equal (car pattern1) '*) ) ;if next two atoms in patterns match (if (match-atom (cadr pattern1) (cadr pattern2)) ;then continue comparing pattern1 with next atom in pattern2 (match (cdr pattern1) (cdr pattern2)) ;if not then match pattern1 against cdr of pattern2 (match pattern1 (cdr pattern2)))) (t (and (match (car pattern1) (car pattern2)) (match (cdr pattern1) (cdr pattern2))))))
------------------------------------------------------------ A further problem I had (with the final version of prac 2), took a long time to solve. The lecturer had a hard time finding the problem. This was the code:
I kept getting an error saying that glist couldn't append with an atom. We were puzzled since we had explicitly defined (car pattern2) as a list.
As it turn out, the global variable 'glist' had been set as an atom in an earlier test of the program. It took a long time for us to find this error, since there was nothing wrong with that piece of code. We just had to include at the start of the program: (setf glist nil)
So there ya go. It's all fixed now, but this is an example of the grief I went through.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> | yep, you are still weird.
You keep claiming that you have problems learning Common Lisp. Your real problem, however, is that you appear to have to force-fit things to fit your preconceived notions. This is not a Common Lisp problem. This is a personal problem on your end. Your lack of ability to understand that other people have a point of view that you may benefit from understanding is downright annoying. This is all about you, you, you. Nothing you do here is about understanding others. The whole fucking world has to adapt to /your/ way of looking at things. People here have tried to help you, in their spare time. Goddamn ungrateful egoist.
| Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the start.
Other people are not like yourself. Other people read fast and have a very high comprehension and retention of what they have read.
| I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying to seek | understanding.
But only on your own terms. That is not understanding.
| All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks like you flaming me, trying to | tell me I dumb.
Have I said you are dumb? No. I have implied very strongly that unless you have better ways of expressing yourself, your very stupid actions may well reflect on your person. You have a choice here. You can either confirm people's suspicions by not doing any better, or you can exercise the freedom that I and many others (who are not like you) grant other people at every interaction. You are obviously not used to being given second chances, but insist on dwelling on the past instead of looking to the future. Your whole obsession with how hard Common Lisp is compared to Java just confirms this unhealthy dwelling on the past. Get over the past. You can do nothing about you. You can do just about everything about the future.
| I'm not, and all I could do is defend myself.
No, all you could do is do something better. Nobody is interested in your how defend your past mistakes. Everyone is interested in how you learn from them, improve yourself, and do not repeat them. Only you are interested in defending yourself. It is indecent of you to force people to sit through your egoistic self-defense. The purpose of criticizing something you said was that you learn from it, think, and improve. If you all you can do is defend yourself, you were a waste of time to respond to.
| Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
Defending yourself when /you/ are not attacked is incredibly stupid. It means that whatever criticism was directed at your actions may have been the best you can do and there is no hope to see you improve. For most people, this is not how they should present themselves.
| No, it's called defending myself following a barage of critism.
Nobody is interested in your self-defense, only in your doing better.
| Others in the same thread have already admitted that the parentheses in | lisp can be difficult
Some feel-good jerk does that in order to make you feel good. See how much that really helped you understand anything. I know that people who make whining noises like you do would seize upon any such feel-good crap and use it as a reason not to exercise yourself. Ignore the feel-good guys and just /do better next time/. I will applaud you if you do well and reprimand you if you do not get the point but insist on defending yourself. Unlike the feel-good guys, I have zero interest in you as a person, only in what you came here to do: Learn Common Lisp.
| But you need to stop denying that the problem doesn't exist - it does.
The problem you perceive to exist does not exist. There is a problem, but it is not what you think it is. You refuse to listen to people who have seen literally hundreds of people before you whining just like you do. This ignorant arrogance is not to your credit.
| I never came here whining. You need to learn how to read. Why don't you | start at the top.
And just /when/ did your arrogance reach such heights that you think you are here to give people advice? Geez, the snotty attitude of some people.
| hmmm.......did I blame my tools did I. Your starting to state things that | are not true. Learn how to read.
Perhaps you should try to understand /why/ somebody reads you this way instead of getting your stupid high horse to defend yourself? Nobody is interested in your self-defense -- only you. Here we care about getting the point and learning to program in Lisp. That is why you claim you came here, but is not actually true, is it? You came here to ask people to validate your pain. Some people are into this kind of touchy-feely crap, and others are not. If you attack those who are not into these psyche games, you run the risk of losing the sympathy even of the former.
| Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate McDonalds, and I | enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in the Barossa Valley. What your | talking is just trash.
Your inability to get the point of the analogy does suggest a deficient mind.
| Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard of that.
Look who forgot their chill pill this morning! Did you want to learn Lisp or did you come here to defend yourself when you /have/ been an idiot and /continue/ to act like an idiot? Make a choice. If you have been stupid, nobody will hold that against you, especially not I. If you continue to be stupid when you have been asked to stop, that /will/ be held against you. Get with the program! Focus on your stated goal.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
> Yes -- because if you act like a moron making a complete ass of > yourself and very smart people take the time to tell you so, the > /mature/ reaction would be to ask yourself what you did wrong and > how you could do better in the future -- /listen/ to them. > Instead you chose to behave like an annoying teenager -- whining > and defending yourself.
I detest people who categorise people on the internet. I have not been whining. If I had been a whining teenager, I would have posted something like this: "I'm trying to write code that does this........ Could you please post the solution for me so that I can pass my assignment?" But no, I have posted here seeking understanding. Why should I get flamed for not understanding? I am trying to understand, but idiots like you make it impossible.
Perhaps if you realised that I'm a mature student you might have thought differently. I guess you would even be shocked to realise that I'm female. It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people as male on the internet.
What sucks even more, is that there have only been a select few who have actually tried to help me. I'm trying to understand the concept of why Lisp is different. I also expressed a little exasperation at the syntax of lisp - this is not whining, it's just a little frustration I am going through. What I am learning at the moment in lisp at uni is exclusively AI. This is why I don't understand how Lisp can also be applied as a normal programming language (such as Java, C++, etc), and why I don't understand much else about lisp.
Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
-- Mel - LOOK! It's a female name - surprise surprise!
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> > > Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language. > > > Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your > > > mantra is "letting go".
> > No I guess I wasn't warned. I'm here to try and grasp understanding of > > why it looks different. I don't understand the concept of why in Java we > > create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you > > just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window, > > then you have to enter the functions all over again.
> What book are you using to learn? It seems very outdated.
The book I am learning from isn't outdated, but it just isn't a Lisp book. It's called "Artificial Intelligence - Structures and strategies for complex problem solving".
I'm not doing a course on Lisp, I'm doing a course on AI. We happen to be using lisp as our language.
I guess that's why there is so much confusion.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> | All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
So figure it out! Stop posting things that make people respond that way! You can control this by not being obnoxious and negativistic about some- thing that people really are here because they like. You approach people the same way you approach Common Lisp, it seems. You think they ought to be different from they are and you think people ask you to be different so you defend yourself. But this is not what people here think or do. People here are just so goddamn tired of whining losers who come in here to talk about how hard it is to learn Common Lisp.
This is not about you. This is about your lack of focus on your task at hand. You said you want to understand Common Lisp. Then do something that is consistent with that claim. Do not defend yourself. Do not tell people you think they are weird. Focus on understanding Common Lisp.
Can you do this?
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Thankyou. That helps heaps. This example helps me realise where Lisp is compared to the others. Prolog too, we are learning a little of that at uni aswell, but only on paper. We don't have to program in it.
Adding in a few others I assume it would be like this:
Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > Assembly?
correct me if I'm wrong.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > | yep, you are still weird.
> You keep claiming that you have problems learning Common Lisp. Your real > problem, however, is that you appear to have to force-fit things to fit > your preconceived notions. This is not a Common Lisp problem. This is a > personal problem on your end. Your lack of ability to understand that > other people have a point of view that you may benefit from understanding > is downright annoying. This is all about you, you, you. Nothing you do > here is about understanding others. The whole fucking world has to adapt > to /your/ way of looking at things. People here have tried to help you, > in their spare time. Goddamn ungrateful egoist.
> | Perhaps you should re-read all the posts, right from the start.
> Other people are not like yourself. Other people read fast and have a > very high comprehension and retention of what they have read.
> | I never came here winging about Lisp. I came here trying to seek > | understanding.
> But only on your own terms. That is not understanding.
> | All I got is weird idiotic cyber freeks like you flaming me, trying to > | tell me I dumb.
> Have I said you are dumb? No. I have implied very strongly that unless > you have better ways of expressing yourself, your very stupid actions may > well reflect on your person. You have a choice here. You can either > confirm people's suspicions by not doing any better, or you can exercise > the freedom that I and many others (who are not like you) grant other > people at every interaction. You are obviously not used to being given > second chances, but insist on dwelling on the past instead of looking to > the future. Your whole obsession with how hard Common Lisp is compared > to Java just confirms this unhealthy dwelling on the past. Get over the > past. You can do nothing about you. You can do just about everything > about the future.
> | I'm not, and all I could do is defend myself.
> No, all you could do is do something better. Nobody is interested in > your how defend your past mistakes. Everyone is interested in how you > learn from them, improve yourself, and do not repeat them. Only you are > interested in defending yourself. It is indecent of you to force people > to sit through your egoistic self-defense. The purpose of criticizing > something you said was that you learn from it, think, and improve. If > you all you can do is defend yourself, you were a waste of time to > respond to.
> | Now I'm getting flamed for defending myself - wow!
> Defending yourself when /you/ are not attacked is incredibly stupid. It > means that whatever criticism was directed at your actions may have been > the best you can do and there is no hope to see you improve. For most > people, this is not how they should present themselves.
> | No, it's called defending myself following a barage of critism.
> Nobody is interested in your self-defense, only in your doing better.
> | Others in the same thread have already admitted that the parentheses in > | lisp can be difficult
> Some feel-good jerk does that in order to make you feel good. See how > much that really helped you understand anything. I know that people who > make whining noises like you do would seize upon any such feel-good crap > and use it as a reason not to exercise yourself. Ignore the feel-good > guys and just /do better next time/. I will applaud you if you do well > and reprimand you if you do not get the point but insist on defending > yourself. Unlike the feel-good guys, I have zero interest in you as a > person, only in what you came here to do: Learn Common Lisp.
> | But you need to stop denying that the problem doesn't exist - it does.
> The problem you perceive to exist does not exist. There is a problem, > but it is not what you think it is. You refuse to listen to people who > have seen literally hundreds of people before you whining just like you > do. This ignorant arrogance is not to your credit.
> | I never came here whining. You need to learn how to read. Why don't you > | start at the top.
> And just /when/ did your arrogance reach such heights that you think you > are here to give people advice? Geez, the snotty attitude of some people.
> | hmmm.......did I blame my tools did I. Your starting to state things that > | are not true. Learn how to read.
> Perhaps you should try to understand /why/ somebody reads you this way > instead of getting your stupid high horse to defend yourself? Nobody is > interested in your self-defense -- only you. Here we care about getting > the point and learning to program in Lisp. That is why you claim you > came here, but is not actually true, is it? You came here to ask people > to validate your pain. Some people are into this kind of touchy-feely > crap, and others are not. If you attack those who are not into these > psyche games, you run the risk of losing the sympathy even of the former.
> | Ah, an analogy. Wow, very impressive. Actually, I hate McDonalds, and I > | enjoy fine wine. In fact, I used to live in the Barossa Valley. What your > | talking is just trash.
> Your inability to get the point of the analogy does suggest a deficient > mind.
> | Be careful using 'we' on usenet. TINW, haven't you ever heard of that.
> Look who forgot their chill pill this morning! Did you want to learn > Lisp or did you come here to defend yourself when you /have/ been an > idiot and /continue/ to act like an idiot? Make a choice. If you have > been stupid, nobody will hold that against you, especially not I. If you > continue to be stupid when you have been asked to stop, that /will/ be > held against you. Get with the program! Focus on your stated goal.
Look, there are others who *are* actually helping me here. Your wasting usenet space with your abuse, and frankly, I'm tired of reading it. I'm going to stick with those that are helping me.
If you can't post something helpful, well, I guess killfile will work. Consider this only a warning. Any more abusive posts, and you'll be kill-filed.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > | All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
> So figure it out! Stop posting things that make people respond that way! > You can control this by not being obnoxious and negativistic about some- > thing that people really are here because they like. You approach people > the same way you approach Common Lisp, it seems. You think they ought to > be different from they are and you think people ask you to be different > so you defend yourself. But this is not what people here think or do. > People here are just so goddamn tired of whining losers who come in here > to talk about how hard it is to learn Common Lisp.
> This is not about you. This is about your lack of focus on your task at > hand. You said you want to understand Common Lisp. Then do something > that is consistent with that claim. Do not defend yourself. Do not tell > people you think they are weird. Focus on understanding Common Lisp.
> Can you do this?
Look, just fuck off will you. Your getting boring. If you can't be helpful, just shutup.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> Thankyou. That helps heaps. This example helps me realise where Lisp is > compared to the others. Prolog too, we are learning a little of that at > uni aswell, but only on paper. We don't have to program in it.
> Adding in a few others I assume it would be like this:
> Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > Assembly?
> correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually, I missed one. That should be:
Html > Prolog > Lisp > Java > C++ > C > assembly?
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
* arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> | I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
Like "you are weird"?
| Why should I get flamed for not understanding? I am trying to understand, | but idiots like you make it impossible.
OK. that does it. You blame other people for your own shortcomings, and you blame your tools for your own problems finding and fixing parentheses problems.
| I guess you would even be shocked to realise that I'm female.
Some of us have excellent reading comprehension and retention and would only be shocked if you had suddenly changed into a male.
| It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people as male | on the internet.
This is only something you believe. You assume much too much about other people. Some people do not categorize /people/ in the first place, only their actions. Some people do not actually have to deal with a "complete person" in order to respond to something they write. To some people, the concept of debate and discussion is not about personal relations, but about exchanging ideas and thoughts and working with other people to solve or discuss problems.
| Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
If you go back and actually /read/ my replies to you, you will probably be shocked to find that I have actually answered your questions. You have not paid any attention because your only interest was defending yourself and thinking about your own feelings. Believe it or not, but I want you to focus on your question and what you say you are doing here, but you keep talking about people. This is actually wrong of you.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
arien wrote: >>Surely you were warned that Lisp is a freaky, weirdo, bizarre language. >>Would you even /want/ it to look like Java/C? Meditate on that. Your >>mantra is "letting go".
> No I guess I wasn't warned.
OK.
> I'm here to try and grasp understanding of > why it looks different.
It's a little complicated. Trust us, it is better.
> I don't understand the concept of why in Java we > create .class files, in C++ you create .exe files, but yet in Lisp you > just enter the functions in a "Listener". And if you close the window, > then you have to enter the functions all over again.
hoo-boy, can we have a word with your instructor? No wonder you are having trouble. In LW, use File>New> to start editing source you can save as i-hate.lisp.
> You guys gotta understand, I'm not putting down Lisp, I'm trying to get > information. All I'm getting is a barage of defensive replies.
No, you first got a lot of considerate guidance suggesting you spend a few weeks with something new before slamming it. Nothing you have written has been responsive to said guidance. Instead, you just keep saying you cannot abide parentheses. I think a careful plot of the hostility of this thread will show it rising over time to meet the constant level of Lisp bashing in your articles.
OK. 30-day cease fire? During those 30 days you promise to withhold judgment, we promise to help you learn Lisp and even the LW IDE.
Deal?
--
kenny tilton clinisys, inc --------------------------------------------------------------- ""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."" Elwood P. Dowd
arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> writes: > > Yes -- because if you act like a moron making a complete ass > > of yourself and very smart people take the time to tell you > > so, the /mature/ reaction would be to ask yourself what you > > did wrong and how you could do better in the future -- > > /listen/ to them. Instead you chose to behave like an > > annoying teenager -- whining and defending yourself.
> I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
Hm -- why? And why specifically on the internet? Ah, never mind...
> I have not been whining. If I had been a whining teenager, I > would have posted something like this: "I'm trying to write > code that does this........ Could you please post the solution > for me so that I can pass my assignment?"
That would be a ``whining loser'' :-)
> But no, I have posted here seeking understanding. Why should I > get flamed for not understanding?
That is not what you have been (very mildly) flamed for. You continue making statements like ``Lisp syntax is hard to learn'', then ``Lisp syntax is hard to write'', ``Java syntax is easier''. However, no matter whether that is true or not, making such statements does not help you one bit trying to improve your understanding. Instead, you should defer such judgements and start learning something new, ask specific questions. That's all people are trying to tell you.
> I am trying to understand, but idiots like you make it > impossible.
How can this possibly be? :-)
> Perhaps if you realised that I'm a mature student you might > have thought differently. I guess you would even be shocked to > realise that I'm female.
I am not that easily shocked -- and it doesn't make any difference. In fact there are several women very knowledgable about Lisp, one posts here occasionally, others have written good books about it.
> It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people > as male on the internet.
So what? Most people you meet there /are/ male, so this is usually a safe bet.
> What sucks even more, is that there have only been a select few > who have actually tried to help me.
In fact, /all/ of them were trying to help you.
> I'm trying to understand the concept of why Lisp is different.
Ok. This takes some time. Have patience, listen to people and defer judgements. If you think something is weird, chances are that there is a very good reason things are the way they are, only you haven't understood it yet; Lisp has evolved over decades to the way it is now, very smart people have thought a very long time about every single thing.
> I also expressed a little exasperation at the syntax of lisp - > this is not whining, it's just a little frustration I am going > through.
Ok -- note however, that in a highly technical forum like this people do not care very much about personal things like frustration. Come to think about it, I'd say expressing personal frustration is just that -- whining :-) Get over that and back to work.
> What I am learning at the moment in lisp at uni is exclusively > AI. This is why I don't understand how Lisp can also be applied > as a normal programming language (such as Java, C++, etc), and > why I don't understand much else about lisp.
Hm. I would think that programming AI should illustrate very well how to use a programming language as you need all kinds of techniques there.
> Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
Explain what? Lisp? Well, one step at a time :-)
First, others have already noted that it is very important that you get indentation right. Lispworks' editor helps you here: When the cursor is on a line of code and you hit Tab, this line should be correctly indented relative to the previous line. You can indent whole expressions: If you have a badly indented function like
which happens quite often when you change code, you put the cursor onto the first opening brace (before the DEFUN) and hit C-M-q (Control-Meta-q, or Control-Alt-q). This should automatically indent the whole thing to
Now if you get a parenthesis wrong, this should in most cases become immediately apparent because the indentation looks weird (after hitting C-M-q). The COND expressions you posted, for instance, were /not/ correctly indented. Try it out.
> Mel - LOOK! It's a female name - surprise surprise!
Hm, is Mel Brooks a woman, too?
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
* arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> | I'm using LispWorks. Yes, the editor helps, but it's still can be | confusing. Initially I kept putting the last bracket for 'cond' in the | wrong spot, for example: | | (defun myFunction (myList) | (cond ((listp myList) | (myfunction (cdr (myList)))) | (t nil))) ;I would put the closing bracket for cond here | | instead of: | | (defun myFunction (myList) | (cond ((listp myList) | (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here | (t nil)) | | I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you | find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in the | wrong spot.
An editor would help you understand the indentation, but this is an interesting case since the correct code would look like this:
Common Lisp code is very easy to write correctly when you figure out the indentation that the editor does for you. Do not fight the indentation, no matter what you think about it. If you think you know better, forget it, you do not.
| I've never seen emacs. Is it free, can I download it?
It would only confuse you at this juncture and derail you from getting your assignments done in time. People who do not want to stay for the duration of the learning curve, and you have certainly given me the impression that you would not do that, have been known to pester and plague the Emacs community with their prejudice and preordained knowledge about how editing should have been done.
| This is part of the code for the last assignment I did. This part of the | program is not the requirements for the final practical, since someone in | another thread ("hi, I am trying to make some code that does this") asked | how to get the identical prac working. I'm not about to post my code for | this fella.
So incredibly egoistic. So /inviting/ for people to help you out.
| So there ya go. It's all fixed now, but this is an example of the grief I | went through.
Why is this grief that you are going through so important that you want to share with the whole entire world?
BTW, you should go rent «The Big Kahuna» with Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito, who both do excellent character development in this masterpiece. Hell, buy it! It is that good.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <3244418362115...@naggum.no>, e...@naggum.no says...
> * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > | I detest people who categorise people on the internet.
> Like "you are weird"?
> | Why should I get flamed for not understanding? I am trying to understand, > | but idiots like you make it impossible.
> OK. that does it. You blame other people for your own shortcomings, and > you blame your tools for your own problems finding and fixing parentheses > problems.
Oh really? I think you need to get a life. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. In fact *other people* around here are trying to help me. Your the only one who seem to be offended by the fact that parentheses are confusing.
> | I guess you would even be shocked to realise that I'm female.
> Some of us have excellent reading comprehension and retention and would > only be shocked if you had suddenly changed into a male.
The previous poster obviously didn't though.
> | It sucks because so many people automatically categorise people as male > | on the internet.
> This is only something you believe. You assume much too much about other > people. Some people do not categorize /people/ in the first place, only > their actions. Some people do not actually have to deal with a "complete > person" in order to respond to something they write. To some people, the > concept of debate and discussion is not about personal relations, but > about exchanging ideas and thoughts and working with other people to > solve or discuss problems.
So why was I categorised as a teenager then huh? Comon smartie, explain that to me - no don't bother.
> | Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
> If you go back and actually /read/ my replies to you, you will probably > be shocked to find that I have actually answered your questions.
No, you have not posted a single, useful reply.
> You > have not paid any attention because your only interest was defending > yourself and thinking about your own feelings. Believe it or not, but I > want you to focus on your question and what you say you are doing here, > but you keep talking about people. This is actually wrong of you.
So you successfully posted another unhelpful abusive post. Welcome to my killfile. In fact, you can proudly be the only person on my killfile. congratulations!
I have never found it necessary to killfile others before. I don't bother myself with getting upset with trolls. But you are just taking up a lot of usenet space. I'm going to stick with those that are trying to help. Good luck. You know, it's a pretty boring out there when you can only argue with yourself.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
> (defun myFunction (myList) > (cond ((listp myList) > (myfunction (cdr (myList)))));instead of here > (t nil))
This one is wrong, and as your lisp improves you will realize at once that (t nil) aligning with (cond...) means you got too many parens on the cond form and closed it before you got in the (t nil) final clause.
> I've learnt this one now. But as you can see, an editor doesn't help you > find this problem, since all the parentheses are there, but one is in > the wrong spot.
Oops. Well, we are making headway now. Like we have been saying, the auto-indentation /does/ make misplaced parens obvious. But that in turn relies on knowing where things /should/ indent, so until your Lisp gets stronger you have to slow down and think about how things should align lest, as here, you miss the indentation cue.
--
kenny tilton clinisys, inc --------------------------------------------------------------- ""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."" Elwood P. Dowd
arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> writes: > In article <3244418362115...@naggum.no>, e...@naggum.no says... > > * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > > | It sucks because so many people automatically categorise > > | people as male on the internet.
> > This is only something you believe. You assume much too > > much about other people. Some people do not categorize > > /people/ in the first place, only their actions. Some > > people do not actually have to deal with a "complete > > person" in order to respond to something they write. To > > some people, the concept of debate and discussion is not > > about personal relations, but about exchanging ideas and > > thoughts and working with other people to solve or discuss > > problems.
> So why was I categorised as a teenager then huh? Comon smartie, > explain that to me - no don't bother.
You weren't -- I said you /behaved/ like an annoying teenager. Note the difference and you might grow a clue.
> > | Rather than flaming me, would you care to explain it to me?
> > If you go back and actually /read/ my replies to you, you > > will probably be shocked to find that I have actually > > answered your questions.
> No, you have not posted a single, useful reply.
Yes he has. Please try to /understand/, for chrissake!
> So you successfully posted another unhelpful abusive > post. Welcome to my killfile. In fact, you can proudly be the > only person on my killfile. congratulations!
That would be a particularly stupid thing to do. You can learn a lot from him, he can learn nothing much from you but is still spending a lot of his time trying to make you think and understand. Now if you would only start doing that :-)
> You know, it's a pretty boring out there when you can only > argue with yourself.
I fear it is not him who is going to experience that... :-))
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
