Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?
bolega
world programming ?
http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation
Kindly pick one from commercial and one from open-source .
The criteria is :
libraries, gui interface and builder, libraries for TCP, and evolving
needs.
Please compare LISP and its virtues with other languages such as
javascript, python etc.
I put javascript in the context that it is very similar in its
architecture (homoiconic ie same representation for data-structures
and operations, ie hierarchical, which means nested-lists <=> n-ary
tree <=> binary tree <=> linked-list <=> dictionary <=> task-subtask,
and implicitly based on what C calls pointers, and at machine level
the indirect addressing of memory) to lisp family.
I put python in the context that it has the most extensive libraries
and shares the build-fix virtue of lisp highlighted by Paul Graham in
his books. Python is touted for its rapid prototyping of guis. It
syntax enforces stable format which guards against programmer malice
or sloppiness - so that there is a certain level of legacy code
readability.
Both have eval but not clear what is the implementation efficiency to
justify the habit of excessively using it.
Certainly, lisp/scheme are excellent for learning the concepts of
programming languages due to its multi-paradigm nature and readily
available code of the elementary interpreter.
Is there an IDE for these lispish-scheming languages ? Is there
quality implementation for Eclipse ? Emacs pre-supposes some knowledge
of these so that newbie can get stuck. Also, emacs help is not very
good.
Is there a project whereby the internal help of emacs (analogous to
its man pages) are being continuously being updated AND shared ? I
have never seen updates to the help. Perhaps, the commercial people
are doing it, even from the posts of the newsgroups, but the public
distros or these newsgroups have NEVER made such an announcement.
Explanations integrated into the help are more important than the
books - its like the wikipedia incorporated into emacs.
Is there support for the color highlighting of the code by hovering as
on this page ?
http://community.schemewiki.org/?lexical-scope
Which book/paper has the briefest minimal example of gui design along
XML nested/hiearchical elements with event-listeners for lisp/scheme ?
Thanks
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
> world programming ?
What's the real world?
What's real world programming?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Pascal Costanza
> bolega<gnui...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
>> world programming ?
>
> What's the real world?
> What's real world programming?
I guess somebody's just enjoying flame wars too much.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Kenneth Tilton
> Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
> world programming ?
>
> http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation
>
> Kindly pick one from commercial and one from open-source .
ACL and SBCL
>
> The criteria is :
>
> libraries, gui interface and builder, libraries for TCP, and evolving
> needs.
>
> Please compare LISP and its virtues with other languages such as
> javascript, python etc.
It's better.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
"The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
Macworld
bolega
wrote:
I mean ordinary people, who may want to do things with their computers
for scripting, tasks that python can do, possibly when a language is
weak and another has library, then use some function from there even
if it is compiled. A set of work around techniques will always be
needed. Things that perl does, python does, bash does etc. things like
java applets for various animations etc. possibly some unoptimized but
fast protyping of parsers to fix files or convert formats etc. a wide
array of user tasks.
Sorry, I dont intend any flame wars ... as a general statement ...
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> On Jun 10, 2:51�pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>> bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
>> > world programming ?
>>
>> What's the real world?
>> What's real world programming?
>>
>> --
>> __Pascal Bourguignon__ � � � � � � � � � �http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> I mean ordinary people, who may want to do things with their computers
Ah, ordinary people. Then the answer is easy: iPhone and iPad.
That's computers for ordinary people, and very good at that!
> for scripting, tasks that python can do, possibly when a language is
> weak and another has library, then use some function from there even
> if it is compiled.
Notice that for a library to work with python, python requires that it
be put under a format acceptable to python. In the lisp world, we
never imagined to be able to force people to adapt their libraries to
our needs and requimenets.
We have FFI, and we try very hard to work with all sort of random
libraries whatever their implementation language and quality, as if we
were mere C programs. Sometimes with success, sometimes with failure.
That said, given that the requirements of lisp and of python are
similar, any library that is pythonified, can be integrated in the
lisp environments easily, automatically even, it should only require
some coding if it's not already done.
> A set of work around techniques will always be
> needed. Things that perl does,
Ie. being part of the problem.
Again, you could search cll archives about that (using Erik Naggum as
author this time). Or you could use this:
http://xach.com/naggum/articles/
http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/31631935...@naggum.no.html
> python does,
failing at meta programming.
> bash does
failing at anything but oneliner "scripts".
> things like java applets for various animations
What applets? Have you ever seen a java applet? Last time I saw one
it must have been fifteen years ago.
> possibly some unoptimized but fast protyping of parsers
Optimized parser generators were developed 30 years ago. What's your
problem?
> to fix files or convert formats etc. a wide
> array of user tasks.
files to be fixed and format convertion are not user tasks. They're
programming tasks, if they're not management problems in the first
place. Therefore you need a programming language, to write programs,
to fix files, and to convert formats.
fortunatus
wrote:
> What applets? Have you ever seen a java applet? Last time I saw one
> it must have been fifteen years ago.
I have a Java applet that I use for GUI front end on some of my Lisp
work - when HTML forms and pages aren't enough because I want to push
to the display. It reads strings from a TCP socket connected back to
the Lisp application. I used the Java introspection features to
interpret limited Lispy syntax:
j-exp --> (<thing> <argument-or-j-exp>)
<argument-or-j-exp> --> <argument>*
<argument-or-j-exp> --> j-exp
where the <thing> is some member subclass or member function or
variable. If there is an argument list, then if a member function
named <thing> is found it called with the arguments, which must be
constants. If there is no member function of name <thing>, then if
there is a member scalar variable of name <thing>, then the first
<argument> is coerced and assigned to that member variable. On the
other hand, if there is a nested j-exp, then <thing> is taken as a
member class variable, and the process starts over with that variable
as context. You subclass this applet to add GUI to it, and you better
like Java.
Any GUI listeners in the applet have prints that send similar string
expressions back to the Lisp app, which is also a subclassed from a
simple prototype, and the methods are called with the instance as the
first argument. Instances are generated as web browsers connect to
startup routines published via paserve.
N e e d l e s s t o s a y , the Java introspection side, along
with the parsing of the expressions (which is about as easy of a
grammar as you can get), took about 3 days, while the Lisp side took
about 10 minutes to write the 5 lines needed for READing and calling
APPLY.
(So far I avoid JavaScript - so this whole qooxlisp thing, I don't
know. Although I understand no need to actually write JavaScript, but
still I try to avoid running it in the browser. But I don't know,
cells sounds good to me, so this qooxlisp thing might end up changing
my ways...)
Alberto Riva
> Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
> world programming ?
Boring question. I think it'd be much more interesting to ask... what's
the best language for Middle Earth programming? Or for Arrakis
programming? Or for Atlantis programming? Or for Lilliput programming?
Alberto
Espen Vestre
> What applets? Have you ever seen a java applet? Last time I saw one
> it must have been fifteen years ago.
I see one each time I log into my internet banking
service. Unfortunately.
--
(espen)
Tamas K Papp
> Please compare LISP and its virtues with other languages such as
> javascript, python etc.
Generally, it is advisable to cross-post questions like this to at
least 50 other language newsgroups. For example, you are not giving
Ruby users a fair chance to compare their language to Lisp, Java, and
Python. Also, you missed Fortran! The guiding principle should be to
choose a wide range of languages, the more disparate the better.
OTOH, I applaud the lack of specificity. Lesser minds would have
asked about a specific Lisp dialect, such as CL. Such things should
be avoided, as they focus the discussion unnecessarily.
Cheers,
Tamas
Elena
> I mean ordinary people, who may want to do things with their computers
Lisp is not for ordinary people, Python is.
Andrew Philpot
Python is for ordinary people.
Lisp is for extraordinary people.
I believe nearly all people have the potential to be extraordinary, but
most choose to remain merely ordinary.
Sigh.
Chris Hulan
and improved Scheme
Elena
> Haven't used it but Racket (http://racket-lang.org/) looks to be a new
> and improved Scheme
I have checked it out and I don't recommend it to others.
Racket is not Scheme anymore (it can't use SLIB, which relies on
common Scheme facilities). Racket is a language and an environment on
their own. For instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE,
therefore you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice.
Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much more
than that.
Sam TH
On Jun 11, 5:44 pm, Elena <egarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 Giu, 20:03, Chris Hulan <chris.hu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Haven't used it but Racket (http://racket-lang.org/) looks to be a new
> > and improved Scheme
> Racket is not Scheme anymore (it can't use SLIB, which relies on
> common Scheme facilities).
While SLIB is hard to run in Racket, Racket comes with a comprehensive
library (see http://docs.racket-lang.org) which provides much of the
specific functionality of SLIB as well as much more besides.
Contributions of missing libraries are more than welcome.
Additionally, the original question asked for a LISP for real-world
programming, a category in which Racket excels, rather than an SLIB
host.
> Racket is a language and an environment on
> their own. For instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE,
> therefore you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice.
This is not the case. See the documentation for the errortrace
library [1] for information on how to use it. As befits an IDE, it's
able to provide additional debugging facilities, but they are not
required.
> Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much more
> than that.
Many people, including core Racket developers, work primarily via the
REPL outside of DrRacket.
tfgordon
Consider Clojure: http://clojure.org/
You might want to watch one of these videos for an overview:
There is also evidence that Clojure is currently the most popular
Lisp, more "popular" than Scheme or Common Lisp, whatever that means:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=common+lisp,+scheme+language,+clojure
-Tom G.
Nicolas Neuss
Maybe you can derive that the trend for Clojure is better (not
surprisingly given its youth), but using such searches for guessing
absolute numbers is meaningless. For example, if you compare "Scheme
language" and "Clojure language", you don't see Clojure at all.
Nicolas
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
I have used several available LISP systems such as the Gigamonkeys CLISP
Lispbox, and the Clozure Common LISP.
The system which I currently am using is the Franz Allegro Common LISP.
It is a commercial product; and so far I have had no problems with the
Allegro. (NB: I am using the Express version. I feel that the full
scale commercial license is not exceedingly expensive.)
(Right now I'm studying and working with the exercises in Peter Norvig's
book Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming. I have done 16
of the 25 chapters.)
This is not an advertisement. If someone wishes to criticize that
product, or if someone would like to suggest some other equally usable
implementation, of course please feel free to do so.
regards, Antti J. Ylikoski
Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
You said that you also want one implementation from open-source.
Amongst these, the best one according to my experience is the Clozure
Commmon Lisp.
(Disclaimer: I have not used the Embeddable Common Lisp, and not the
Armed Bear Common Lisp, and not the Clojure Commmon Lisp. The reason
for this is the fact that after beginnninng to use the Allegro, I felt
that I need not personally test any more Lisp implementations.)
Maybe it could be a good idea for someone to write an academic study of
all these available Lisp implementations. Even Interlisp still lives,
as it was recently noted in this newsgroup. (I did not check the
Google. Has someone alredy done so? Ie. studied the existing many Lisp
implementations?)
vanekl
snip
> Maybe it could be a good idea for someone to write an academic study
> of all these available Lisp implementations. Even Interlisp still
> lives, as it was recently noted in this newsgroup. (I did not check
> the Google. Has someone alredy done so? Ie. studied the existing
> many Lisp implementations?)
>
> regards, Antti J. Ylikoski
> Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.
Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
You bring up a good point -- there are so many mature lisp
implementations
that you can "jump" implementations until you find one that meets your
needs.
--
Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?
Elena
> While SLIB is hard to run in Racket, Racket comes with a comprehensive
> specific functionality of SLIB as well as much more besides.
> Contributions of missing libraries are more than welcome.
>
> Additionally, the original question asked for a LISP for real-world
> programming, a category in which Racket excels, rather than an SLIB
> host.
My arguments were against the assumption that Racket is a super set of
Scheme. It is not, since it lacks common Scheme facilities (required
by SLIB).
Racket has a comprehensive library, that's for sure, but why would you
throw away libraries which were already there?
> > Racket is a language and an environment on
> > their own. For instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE,
> > therefore you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice.
>
> This is not the case. See the documentation for the errortrace
> library [1] for information on how to use it. As befits an IDE, it's
> able to provide additional debugging facilities, but they are not
> required.
If the environment were open, why would some facilities be hidden in
its tools? Among other things, you can't single step Racket outside of
DrRacket. That sounds as a closed environment to me.
> > Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much more
> > than that.
>
> Many people, including core Racket developers, work primarily via the
> REPL outside of DrRacket.
I guess those people must not maintain code written by people outside
their team.
Cheers.
Eli Barzilay
> On 12 Giu, 03:27, Sam TH <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While SLIB is hard to run in Racket, Racket comes with a comprehensive
>> library (seehttp://docs.racket-lang.org) which provides much of the
>> specific functionality of SLIB as well as much more besides.
>> Contributions of missing libraries are more than welcome.
>>
>> Additionally, the original question asked for a LISP for real-world
>> programming, a category in which Racket excels, rather than an SLIB
>> host.
>
> My arguments were against the assumption that Racket is a super set
> of Scheme. It is not, since it lacks common Scheme facilities
> (required by SLIB).
Racket is a superset of Scheme, it doesn't lack any facilities that
SLIB requires. However, SLIB tries to do much on its own: it grabs
`require', which is a very core name in Racket, and builds its own
module-like system on top of `load', which collides with Racket's own
module system. In short, SLIB relies on such "features" as "`require'
is not used" and "`load' is the only way to organize code into
pieces", and Racket doesn't have these "features".
Racket does have very good support for an R5RS language, and my guess
is that it would be easy to make SLIB work there -- IIRC, SLIB
requires some extensions with a per-implementation compatibility layer
to unify them, and this will require some small amount of work given
that Racket's R5RS is very strict in providing exactly R5RS. It might
also run into some problems with the fact that most Racket code uses
immutable pairs, but that's unlikely to be a problem since SLIB will
cover additional list functions (at least that's what I remember).
Whether there's a point in this exercise is a different issue, and so
far nobody has seen any need.
> Racket has a comprehensive library, that's for sure, but why would you
> throw away libraries which were already there?
They were not thrown out. SLIB is not part of Racket and was never
part of PLT Scheme. What PLT did have for years, is a small file that
was supposed to support using an SLIB installation. But setting this
up was not easy to do (IIRC, there were problems that people ran into
with SLIB's "vicinity" or something like that), and even people who
used SLIB would do that directly without using this support. At some
point it became clear that nobody is using this support: it was
severely broken and nobody noticed -- and nobody volunteered to
maintain it so it was dropped...
Now, you can obviously claim that the Racket library ecosystem is to
blame for this lack of support. Had it not have such a comprehensive
library, there surely would be a much stronger motivation for someone
to step up and make SLIB usable in it; but unfortunately, Racket has
enough libraries that makes it much less necessary to do so. Count
"very few libraries, if any" as another R5RS "feature" that Racket
lacks.
Finally, note that SLIB in itself is in no way useless to Racket in
general. For example, I have used an implementation of sort that was
based on it for a long time (only replaced recently with a
half-copying vector based sort). Another example is Schelog that was
recently "ported" to Racket as Racklog. SLIB has always played an
important role in keeping such bits alive.
>> > Racket is a language and an environment on their own. For
>> > instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE, therefore
>> > you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice.
>>
>> This is not the case. See the documentation for the errortrace
>> library [1] for information on how to use it. As befits an IDE,
>> it's able to provide additional debugging facilities, but they are
>> not required.
>
> If the environment were open, why would some facilities be hidden in
> its tools? Among other things, you can't single step Racket outside
> of DrRacket. That sounds as a closed environment to me.
How is that closed when the code for doing so is all there as part of
any *OPEN* source project? I don't even need to defend some black
C-level voodoo that does it, since it's all done in scheme code. It's
true that most of the current code uses the GUI, but that's only
because nobody felt the need yet for doing so outside of the GUI. (As
someone who uses Emacs for editing, I can say that I'm perfectly fine
with random printouts for debugging.) Note also that the Racket
debugger was originally based on MzTake -- a project that implemented
a scriptable debugger via reactive programming, and was not limited to
the GUI.
>> > Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much
>> > more than that.
>>
>> Many people, including core Racket developers, work primarily via
>> the REPL outside of DrRacket.
>
> I guess those people must not maintain code written by people
> outside their team.
Being one of these people, I find your statements odd.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
OT: (very Off Topic.............)
Yes, I would not trust dolphins to take care of my investments.
"You shall know the truth,
And the truth shall make you free."
-- Quotation from the news:alt.politics.org.CIA newsgroup.
(whether they are or are not affiliated with The Company, I will leave
for the reader as a exercise.................)
bolega
What was your main reason for picking the Allegro (commercial) as
opposed to one of the open source ones ? Is there anything in this old
norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?
Štěpán Němec
>> If the environment were open, why would some facilities be hidden in
>> its tools? Among other things, you can't single step Racket outside
>> of DrRacket. That sounds as a closed environment to me.
>
> How is that closed when the code for doing so is all there as part of
> any *OPEN* source project? I don't even need to defend some black
> C-level voodoo that does it, since it's all done in scheme code. It's
> true that most of the current code uses the GUI, but that's only
> because nobody felt the need yet for doing so outside of the GUI.
[snip]
I find this really hard to believe. I use the GUI only for the debugger
and macro stepper. I would _love_ to have that functionality available
in a regular REPL (OTOH, especially the macro stepper uses a lot of
"eye-candyish" features, so it is a bit hard to imagine in some kind of
text-only interface).
Štěpán
George Neuner
<antti.y...@gmail.com> wrote:
>OT: (very Off Topic.............)
>I would not trust dolphins to take care of my investments.
Why not? Remember the chimpanzee that picked stocks and beat many
professional fund managers?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dart-throwing-chimp-still-making-monkey-of-internet-funds?pagenumber=2
The average dolphin's brain is bigger than the average human's (and
far bigger than a chimpanzee's). Dolphin investment strategies might
look fishy to us but dolphins have a unique point of view on important
industries such as transportation, telecommunications, construction,
tourism, energy exploration, food production, etc.
I'd trust a dolphin over a Wall Street fund manager any day.
Pascal Costanza
> What was your main reason for picking the Allegro (commercial) as
> opposed to one of the open source ones ? Is there anything in this old
> norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?
>
> http://norvig.com/paip.html
My favorite Common Lisp environment is LispWorks, which is a commercial
offering, but I regularly deal with many other Common Lisp
implementations as well, including both commercial ones and open source
ones, due to my role as a maintainer of a compatibility layer that is
widely used.
When I started using Common Lisp a couple of years ago, I started with a
commercial environment (Macintosh Common Lisp back then). The main
reason was that this allowed me to focus on learning the language, while
being able to use an IDE that was relatively close to what other IDEs
offered in a familiar way. Back then, it seemed too much of a hassle to
set up an environment using Emacs + some open source Common Lisp
implementation, which was (and still is) the most widely used choice in
a pure open source setting.
I still believe that this is a major strength of the commercial systems,
that you have a mostly hassle-free set up and can directly go into
learning and/or programming in Common Lisp, without having to install,
set up, and/or learn other tools, which may be non-trivial. (Of course,
if you are already used to using Emacs, for example, this may be less of
a problem for you.)
Some people have the fear that there is a risk of a vendor lock-in if
you go the commercial route. However, that's not really true: The
portability of Common Lisp code across different implementations is
excellent, and it is very hard to paint yourself into a corner. Since
the commercial systems also provide free editions, which have some
limitations but are usually more than good enough for learning purposes,
you can also decide to just use them for learning, and then still make
your mind up later on which implementation you eventually go with - at a
stage when you can make a well-informed, and thus better choice. In
fact, it seems to me that it's quite common that Common Lisp users do
use several implementations on a regular basis, taking advantage of
their various strengths depending on the task at hand.
Just my �0.02.
Pascal Costanza
> norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?
>
> http://norvig.com/paip.html
This "old" book by Peter Norvig is still one of the best Common Lisp
introductions you can find, and has some excellent material that is not
covered elsewhere. If you are interested in some fundamental AI concepts
at the same time, this is one of the best choices.
Pascal J. Bourguignon
>
> > [PAIP]
>
> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth
> pursuing as a text ?
Yes.
Pascal J. Bourguignon
Me too. At least, the dolphin wouldn't be a former SEC president, and
would have no use for our painfully spared dollars.
Sam TH
The macro stepper provides a repl-based text interface:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/macro-debugger/index.html?q=macro-debugger#%28mod-path._macro-debugger/stepper-text%29
nanothermite911fbibustards
wrote:
> George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:08 +0300, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski"
> > <antti.yliko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>OT: (very Off Topic.............)
> >>I would not trust dolphins to take care of my investments.
>
> > Why not? Remember the chimpanzee that picked stocks and beat many
> > professional fund managers?
>
> > The average dolphin's brain is bigger than the average human's (and
> > far bigger than a chimpanzee's). Dolphin investment strategies might
> > look fishy to us but dolphins have a unique point of view on important
> > industries such as transportation, telecommunications, construction,
> > tourism, energy exploration, food production, etc.
>
> > I'd trust a dolphin over a Wall Street fund manager any day.
>
> Me too. At least, the dolphin wouldn't be a former SEC president, and
> would have no use for our painfully spared dollars.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Are we really so sure to be that off topic ?
What about the sweet Bernard Madoff ?
nanothermite911fbibustards
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:08 +0300, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski"
> > <antti.yliko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>OT: (very Off Topic.............)
> >>I would not trust dolphins to take care of my investments.
>
> > Why not? Remember the chimpanzee that picked stocks and beat many
> > professional fund managers?
>
> > The average dolphin's brain is bigger than the average human's (and
> > far bigger than a chimpanzee's). Dolphin investment strategies might
> > look fishy to us but dolphins have a unique point of view on important
> > industries such as transportation, telecommunications, construction,
> > tourism, energy exploration, food production, etc.
>
> > I'd trust a dolphin over a Wall Street fund manager any day.
>
> Me too. At least, the dolphin wouldn't be a former SEC president, and
> would have no use for our painfully spared dollars.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Are we so sure to go so much off topic to SEC and Bernard Madoff ?
----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX18zUp6WPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQapkVCx1HI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ-k-iOg0M
Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ?
Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did
you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911
investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put
the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon
Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and
puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without
TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did
you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent
little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhMcii8smxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SZ2lxDJmdg
There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian
courts.
FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but
only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of
Non-whites in all parts of the world.
Daily 911 news : http://911blogger.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
Eli Barzilay
> Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes:
>>> If the environment were open, why would some facilities be hidden in
>>> its tools? Among other things, you can't single step Racket outside
>>> of DrRacket. That sounds as a closed environment to me.
>>
>> How is that closed when the code for doing so is all there as part of
>> any *OPEN* source project? I don't even need to defend some black
>> C-level voodoo that does it, since it's all done in scheme code. It's
>> true that most of the current code uses the GUI, but that's only
>> because nobody felt the need yet for doing so outside of the GUI.
>
> [snip]
>
> I find this really hard to believe.
I don't know what "this" refers to. Most of what I said are facts,
the most important one is that Racket *is* an open system. (At least
it would be damn hard to find a definition of "closed" that will make
it a relevant term.)
Or if you're saying that you don't believe that nobody felt the need
for doing so outside of the gui -- sure, some people felt a need for
it, but it was never substantial enough to result in some form of
working code. The pieces are all there, and they're not that hard to
use either -- yet nobody has picked up the ball. (And that's also a
plain fact.) I've even suggested a route to writing an Emacs package
that will make it possible to have multiple evaluators where each
corresponds to a different buffer using the sandbox library (which can
be seen as the core of what DrRacket uses to do the same). I've
brought this up two or three times, and yet nobody picked it up.
> I use the GUI only for the debugger and macro stepper. I would
> _love_ to have that functionality available in a regular REPL (OTOH,
> especially the macro stepper uses a lot of "eye-candyish" features,
> so it is a bit hard to imagine in some kind of text-only interface).
Like I said -- the debugger is based on mztake, a project that made a
scriptable event-based debugger. You can still get the code for that
at http://www.cs.brown.edu/research/plt/software/mztake/, or you can
start with the current debugger -- the important piece of code is
"collects/gui-debugger/annotator.rkt" which instruments code to be
debugged; and "debug-tool.rkt" is where the gui front end lives.
You'll see that most of the hard work is done in the latter, since the
interface is in general more difficult than the core debugging
facility. You can choose some completely text-based interface, or
some Emacs interface: the core annotator is practically all there in
that "annotator.rkt" file.
So -- here's the ball. Will you pick it up now?
As for the macro stepper -- well, that one already has a textual
interface (see section 3 of the macro debugger manual at:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/macro-debugger/). In fact, it is one of a
few tools that my interactive hack uses. That's a bunch of hacks that
make it easier (for me, at least) to do my work -- see it at
http://barzilay.org/hacks.html. It doesn't have any fancy interface
to stepping through macro expansion -- basically just dumps the steps
out, and it could certainly use more improvements. If you're serious
about making this work, I'll be happy to dump my thing on github to
make it more easily tweakable, and I'll be happy to provide the right
pointers.
So we now have a second ball on the ground. Will you pick this one up
too?
If you pick those balls up, you'll be making something that has a good
chance to be popular (and it will obviously demonstrate that Elena's
statement about Racket being a closed system is bogus). If you don't
pick them up, you'll be providing one more reason why my claim that
"nobody felt the need yet for doing so outside of the GUI" is true.
nanothermite911fbibustards
how to get off topic
-----
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:08 +0300, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski"
> <antti.y...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OT: (very Off Topic.............)
>> I would not trust dolphins to take care of my investments.
>
> Why not? Remember the chimpanzee that picked stocks and beat many
> professional fund managers?
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dart-throwing-chimp-still-making-monkey-of-internet-funds?pagenumber=2
>
It is rather easy to show that in a "homo homini lupus" stock market a
non-ultra-professional (not affiliated with the MKULTRA) strategy is
actually worse than a completely random strategy.
Therefore, these small-brained primates of the genus Pan can actually be
advantageously used in making stocks related business decisions.
One disadvantage is the pecking order of chimpanzees. Chimps detest,
hate, and will bully, any intelligent animate beings, in particular
intelligent beings of the Homo sapiens sapiens genus. Scientific data
are insufficient concerning, how they will relate to inanimate
intelligent objects such as AI.
-- Well, that story, roughly, was what one of my American Jewish
acquaintances (with the surname Levine) suggested to me after he got to
know me and my story.
> The average dolphin's brain is bigger than the average human's (and
> far bigger than a chimpanzee's). Dolphin investment strategies might
> look fishy to us but dolphins have a unique point of view on important
> industries such as transportation, telecommunications, construction,
> tourism, energy exploration, food production, etc.
>
> I'd trust a dolphin over a Wall Street fund manager any day.
Individuals whose political views are in the left are probably the only
ones who will call bankers and their kind "untrustworthy".
One note of leftist politics. When the USSR still was there then there
was there a common pastime in Finland: travel to the USSR as a tourist,
smuggle say a dozen nylons (the kind that women wear) with you, sell the
nylons to Russian ladies, and then with the money that you got from the
nylons invite all of your friends to an expensive (to the proletariat,
expensive) restaurant and spend the entire evening and night there,
enjoying the best of food and drinks, until early morning light. The
money will suffice, nylons were being considered so precious in the USSR.
So common nylons were above the technological capabilities of the
Communist system. When Ronal Reagan announced the Strategic Defence
Initiative, the leaders of the USSR military said they will devise an
SDI system of their own. But, if it is clearly too difficult for the
Communist system to make womens' nylons, then I would not very much fear
the Russkies' capabilities to thwart Reagan's SDI plans, and that which
those plans originally by Reagan have become as decades have passed.
One more note. Russkies have been reputed to have killer satellites,
eg. equip an ordinary in the sky relocatable satellite with a relatively
big explosive (nuclear warheads would be best under actual combat
circumstances) and detonate it close enough to the enemy satellite so
that the explosion will incapacitate the enemy satellite. I decided not
to write more about this here.
kind regards, A. J. Y.
Štěpán Němec
[Just to clarify, my "hard to believe" was only related to the "nobody
felt the need" part.]
>> I use the GUI only for the debugger and macro stepper. I would
>> _love_ to have that functionality available in a regular REPL (OTOH,
>> especially the macro stepper uses a lot of "eye-candyish" features,
>> so it is a bit hard to imagine in some kind of text-only interface).
>
> Like I said -- the debugger is based on mztake, a project that made a
> scriptable event-based debugger. You can still get the code for that
> at http://www.cs.brown.edu/research/plt/software/mztake/, or you can
> start with the current debugger -- the important piece of code is
> "collects/gui-debugger/annotator.rkt" which instruments code to be
> debugged; and "debug-tool.rkt" is where the gui front end lives.
> You'll see that most of the hard work is done in the latter, since the
> interface is in general more difficult than the core debugging
> facility. You can choose some completely text-based interface, or
> some Emacs interface: the core annotator is practically all there in
> that "annotator.rkt" file.
>
> So -- here's the ball. Will you pick it up now?
I don't think so.
> As for the macro stepper -- well, that one already has a textual
> interface (see section 3 of the macro debugger manual at:
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/macro-debugger/). In fact, it is one of a
> few tools that my interactive hack uses. That's a bunch of hacks that
> make it easier (for me, at least) to do my work -- see it at
> http://barzilay.org/hacks.html. It doesn't have any fancy interface
> to stepping through macro expansion -- basically just dumps the steps
> out, and it could certainly use more improvements. If you're serious
> about making this work, I'll be happy to dump my thing on github to
> make it more easily tweakable, and I'll be happy to provide the right
> pointers.
Are you speaking about interactive.ss? I discovered that a week or so
ago, but the command list produced by `,help' doesn't suggest any macro
stepper features?
> So we now have a second ball on the ground. Will you pick this one up
> too?
Thank you (and Sam) for the pointers.
I don't think my very limited abilities would suffice for me to get the
projects you suggest done in any reasonable time (or at all). So maybe
the problem is not that "nobody felt the need", but that most of those
who would benefit are rookies like me -- if we take your example, you
say you use Emacs most of the time, so I'm guessing you don't really
miss the debugging functionality (or at least the part not available
outside DrRacket), and that this might be true for most of those for
whom it would be actually rather easy to implement these features (given
some spare time)?
Štěpán
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
> bolega<gnui...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> [PAIP]
>>
>> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth
>> pursuing as a text ?
>
> Yes.
>
I agree with his criticism that the book is "old", mine stems from the
year 1992.
I bought and studied the Russell-Norvig books on "Artificial
Intelligence: A Modern Approach", ie. the 1th, 2nd (and in the future
the 3rd edition), in order to learn modern AI theory. They have
discontinued the 3rd edition but I succeeded in ordering a copy anyway.
I have read the 1st and the 2nd editions, but I have not yet received
by mail the 3rd edition.
But I only got the PAIP book to learn Common LISP, not in order to study
modern AI. This is why I'm discussing this in the new:comp.lang.LISP
newsgroup.
Any good modern LISP textbooks out there?
Can anyone point to me any other good modern textbooks on AI than the
3rd edition of the Russell-Norvig book? (Which is reputable.)
kind regards, Antti Ylikoski
Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.
Tamas K Papp
> Any good modern LISP textbooks out there?
Practical Common Lisp.
Tamas
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
> 12.6.2010 22:54, Pascal J. Bourguignon kirjoitti:
>> bolega<gnui...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> [PAIP]
>>>
>>> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth
>>> pursuing as a text ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> I agree with his criticism that the book is "old", mine stems from the
> year 1992.
>
> I bought and studied the Russell-Norvig books on "Artificial
> Intelligence: A Modern Approach", ie. the 1th, 2nd (and in the future
> the 3rd edition), in order to learn modern AI theory. They have
> discontinued the 3rd edition but I succeeded in ordering a copy anyway.
> I have read the 1st and the 2nd editions, but I have not yet received by
> mail the 3rd edition.
>
> But I only got the PAIP book to learn Common LISP, not in order to study
> newsgroup.
>
> Any good modern LISP textbooks out there?
>
> Can anyone point to me any other good modern textbooks on AI than the
> 3rd edition of the Russell-Norvig book? (Which is reputable.)
>
> kind regards, Antti Ylikoski
> Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.
I answer my own question: it is a very good idea to visit the AAAI site
and purchase several conference proceedings of the biennal AAAI
conference. -- This is for those who want something more non-basic than
a textbook.
kind regards, Antti J. Ylikoski
(Dislaimer: in the LISP newsgroup this is almost off topic............)
PS. Also see the IJCAI biennal conference proceedings, from the Google
or the Bing.
Idem
Eli Barzilay
> Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes:
>
> [Just to clarify, my "hard to believe" was only related to the "nobody
> felt the need" part.]
>
>>> I use the GUI only for the debugger and macro stepper. I would
>>> _love_ to have that functionality available in a regular REPL (OTOH,
>>> especially the macro stepper uses a lot of "eye-candyish" features,
>>> so it is a bit hard to imagine in some kind of text-only interface).
>>
>> Like I said -- the debugger is based on mztake, a project that made a
>> scriptable event-based debugger. You can still get the code for that
>> at http://www.cs.brown.edu/research/plt/software/mztake/, or you can
>> start with the current debugger -- the important piece of code is
>> "collects/gui-debugger/annotator.rkt" which instruments code to be
>> debugged; and "debug-tool.rkt" is where the gui front end lives.
>> You'll see that most of the hard work is done in the latter, since the
>> interface is in general more difficult than the core debugging
>> facility. You can choose some completely text-based interface, or
>> some Emacs interface: the core annotator is practically all there in
>> that "annotator.rkt" file.
>>
>> So -- here's the ball. Will you pick it up now?
>
> I don't think so.
... and therewego: an example of "nobody felt the need" to the point
of doing something about it.
>> As for the macro stepper -- well, that one already has a textual
>> interface (see section 3 of the macro debugger manual at:
>> http://docs.racket-lang.org/macro-debugger/). In fact, it is one of a
>> few tools that my interactive hack uses. That's a bunch of hacks that
>> make it easier (for me, at least) to do my work -- see it at
>> http://barzilay.org/hacks.html. It doesn't have any fancy interface
>> to stepping through macro expansion -- basically just dumps the steps
>> out, and it could certainly use more improvements. If you're serious
>> about making this work, I'll be happy to dump my thing on github to
>> make it more easily tweakable, and I'll be happy to provide the right
>> pointers.
>
> Are you speaking about interactive.ss? I discovered that a week or so
> ago, but the command list produced by `,help' doesn't suggest any macro
> stepper features?
Use ",help stx".
>> So we now have a second ball on the ground. Will you pick this one up
>> too?
>
> Thank you (and Sam) for the pointers.
>
> I don't think my very limited abilities would suffice for me to get
> the projects you suggest done in any reasonable time (or at all). So
> maybe the problem is not that "nobody felt the need", but that most
> of those who would benefit are rookies like me -- if we take your
> example, you say you use Emacs most of the time, so I'm guessing you
> don't really miss the debugging functionality (or at least the part
> not available outside DrRacket), and that this might be true for
> most of those for whom it would be actually rather easy to implement
> these features (given some spare time)?
That's possible -- but I generally was trying to avoid such guesswork.
My point was that nobody felt enough need to actually do something
about it, which is a plain fact -- whether this is because the
need/investment ratio is usually <1 or whatever other reason might
have caused it is speculation. What certainly is not real is some
evil conspiracy to deprive people of debugging tools.
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
Yes, it is a good book -- I have read it but not yet done the programs
in the book, plus I will have to do the exercises.
Andy
nanothermite911fbibustards
Antti, did you forget to mention that in your love for the author and
publisher you paid an extra tip ;) ?
Thomas A. Russ
> On 12/06/2010 19:36, bolega wrote:
> > Is there anything in this old
> > norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?
> >
> > http://norvig.com/paip.html
>
> This "old" book by Peter Norvig is still one of the best Common Lisp
> introductions you can find, and has some excellent material that is not
> covered elsewhere. If you are interested in some fundamental AI concepts
> at the same time, this is one of the best choices.
I agree.
If you are adept at picking up programming languages, you can just start
with this one, since it does have an introduction to the language in the
early parts of the book. But for some people, the terse introduction is
a bit too barebones. It introduces the language but it isn't a
tutorial, so for a lot of people this would make a better second book.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
nanothermite911fbibustards
I think the guy wanted to know how to embed a Scheme or Lisp
interpreter inside his C code and do useful things with it.
=======
Vacation Responder
The FAT per DIEM FBI bustards use our TAX PAYER MONEY and INCOMPETENCE
is UNACCEPTABLE.
=====
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX18zUp6WPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQapkVCx1HI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ-k-iOg0M
Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ?
Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did
you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911
investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put
the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon
Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and
puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without
TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did
you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent
little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhMcii8smxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SZ2lxDJmdg
There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian
courts.
FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but
only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of
Non-whites in all parts of the world.
Daily 911 news : http://911blogger.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7kGZ3XPEm4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX18zUp6WPY
Conclusion : FBI bustards are RACIST and INcompetent. They could
neither catch the ANTHRAX or 911 YANK/Jew criminals nor could they
cover them up - whichever was their actual task.
SLASH the SALARIES of FBI/CIA/NSA etc BUSTARDS into half all across
tbe board, esp the whites/jew on the top.
FBI Bustards failed to Catch BERNARD MADOFF even after that RACIST and
UNPATRIOTIC Act
FBI bustards failed to prevent ROMAN POLANSKY from absconding to
europe and rapes.
FBI bustards failed to prevent OKLAHOMA
Pascal J. Bourguignon
> 12.6.2010 22:54, Pascal J. Bourguignon kirjoitti:
>> bolega<gnui...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> [PAIP]
>>>
>>> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth
>>> pursuing as a text ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> I agree with his criticism that the book is "old", mine stems from the
> year 1992.
That's not "old". An old book is one that is falling in powder when
you're reading it. Eg. the Quran manuscripts are "old". But any book
since Gutenberg's invention is not old. For a book, that is.
> I bought and studied the Russell-Norvig books on "Artificial
> Intelligence: A Modern Approach", ie. the 1th, 2nd (and in the future
> the 3rd edition), in order to learn modern AI theory. They have
> discontinued the 3rd edition but I succeeded in ordering a copy
> anyway. I have read the 1st and the 2nd editions, but I have not yet
> received by mail the 3rd edition.
>
> But I only got the PAIP book to learn Common LISP, not in order to
> study modern AI. This is why I'm discussing this in the
> new:comp.lang.LISP newsgroup.
>
> Any good modern LISP textbooks out there?
>
> Can anyone point to me any other good modern textbooks on AI than the
> 3rd edition of the Russell-Norvig book? (Which is reputable.)
If we said it is the last AI book written using Lisp, would that make
it worth reading? There's nothing newer in AI! :-)
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
Now what do you mean?
Yes, I'm a bibliophile. Wikipedia:
"The classic bibliophile is one who loves to read, admire and collect
books, often amassing a large and specialized collection....."
I have nothing to do with these publishers and authors with respect to
pecuniary points. They have never paid anything to me, and I have never
intentionally promoted their products in the commercial sense. (So I
would love to read some expert criticism here!!)
"Nervos rerum,
pecuniam."
-- unindentified acquaintances of mine.
But I agree with one of these previous posters (I was wrong about his
entry) that the Norvig book does contain a large amount of useful and
still today scientifically non-obsolete material (as far as I know)
which would be highly useful to a high-calibre AI researcher.
yours, AJY
Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.
"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
-- Quotation from the Bhagavad-gita;
J. Robert Oppenheimer's reaction to the first nuclear weapon tests
Antti "Andy" Ylikoski
> "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski"<antti.y...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 12.6.2010 22:54, Pascal J. Bourguignon kirjoitti:
>>> bolega<gnui...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> [PAIP]
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth
>>>> pursuing as a text ?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with his criticism that the book is "old", mine stems from the
>> year 1992.
>
> That's not "old". An old book is one that is falling in powder when
> you're reading it. Eg. the Quran manuscripts are "old". But any book
> since Gutenberg's invention is not old. For a book, that is.
>
>
Oh yes, you are quite right.
As AI people do know, the meaning of a word depends on its context, and
on the semantics of the text where it occurs.
So in this context "old" means "(at least partially) obsolete".
To the best of my knowledge Norvig's book contains nothing obsolete or
outdated!!!! It is a splendid textbook in any respect. (I have no
business interests in advertising any one of these books..... As I said,
I would love to see also matter-of-fact criticism.)
One of my observations in life is that there exist two skills which are
difficult but highly useful: the skill of saying no; and the skill of
being wrong.
>
>> I bought and studied the Russell-Norvig books on "Artificial
>> Intelligence: A Modern Approach", ie. the 1th, 2nd (and in the future
>> the 3rd edition), in order to learn modern AI theory. They have
>> discontinued the 3rd edition but I succeeded in ordering a copy
>> anyway. I have read the 1st and the 2nd editions, but I have not yet
>> received by mail the 3rd edition.
>>
>> But I only got the PAIP book to learn Common LISP, not in order to
>> study modern AI. This is why I'm discussing this in the
>> new:comp.lang.LISP newsgroup.
>>
>> Any good modern LISP textbooks out there?
>>
>> Can anyone point to me any other good modern textbooks on AI than the
>> 3rd edition of the Russell-Norvig book? (Which is reputable.)
>
> If we said it is the last AI book written using Lisp, would that make
> it worth reading? There's nothing newer in AI! :-)
>
Yes I see that the book indeed is very, very good. Thank you for
correcting me.
kind regards, A. J. Y.
AI practitioners do it with resolution.