Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes:
> I know, someone shoot me in the head, I've gone nuts, > but I'm looking for a FREE lisp compiler for the PC. > Win95/Win98 or DOS is ok.
> Must be able to compile to native code, and create C/C++ linkable object > files.
On UN*X you can get CMUCL (http://www.cons.org). On the PC platform you can get several trial system, but to actually get a native compiler you must shell out some Euros.
> Prove to me lisp is worth it.
Pretty simple. Try to extend your C/C++ syntax to handle some special construct you just came up with. Or, to be even nastier, suppose you were writing an OO window system. You have several types of windows and several types of events. Now write a function that does (in C++)
process_event(WindowClass, EventClass);
Careful. The function must dispatch (i.e. be 'virtual') on *both* arguments. Come back here in three weeks and show us what you came up with. :) (Actually there is a way to respond to this question in three hours - allowing some reading of Coplien's and Lippman's books, along with some basic CL stuff like Keene's "OO Programming in CL": the answer is very simple in this case).
Did I tickle you enough?
Cheers
-- Marco Antoniotti =========================================== PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26 http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
In article <lw1zch154n....@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>, Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:
> Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > I know, someone shoot me in the head, I've gone nuts, > > but I'm looking for a FREE lisp compiler for the PC. > > Win95/Win98 or DOS is ok.
> > Must be able to compile to native code, and create C/C++ linkable object > > files.
> On UN*X you can get CMUCL (http://www.cons.org). On the PC platform > you can get several trial system, but to actually get a native > compiler you must shell out some Euros.
I already have $800 worth of compilers. Unless you can point me to a lisp compiler for under $20, I'm not interested.
> > Prove to me lisp is worth it.
<snip trvial C++ problem>
Anything you can do in lisp, I can do in C++. Or any other language for that matter. True you could get language specific on me and say something like "make a pointer in Java"...yeah well, you can't, but there are ways to emulate that behavior. I am very experienced in several programming languages, and I just wanted a cost analysis of Lisp that would explain to me why it is worth buying.
I need analysis on things like learning curve (the people I work with all learned C++ fairly rapidly, but we are all struggling with perl...for comparison), included software, optimizations on the native binary generation, and things like that.
Right now I just want to use lisp because it seems to be the only langauge AI books speak (and the one that went left field to write a book using C++ didn't learn C++ well enough before they wrote the book).
So I am at an empasse. I want an affordable lisp compiler for Windows, or an INTELLIGENT explanation of why it is worth what companies charge for it (on average, it is about 3x the cost of a GOOD professional C++ compiler).
Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes:
> I already have $800 worth of compilers. Unless you can point me to a > lisp compiler for under $20, I'm not interested.
You could try Corman Lisp (see http://www.corman.net/). There's a fully functional evaluation version available from the web site. I personally have not used it; I have no idea how it compares to other commercial offerings from Franz, Harlequin, or Digitool.
If you actually want to learn about Lisp a little bit, I recommend the following books:
Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming: Case Studies in Common Lisp, by Peter Norvig ANSI Common Lisp, by Paul Graham On Lisp, by Paul Graham
>>>>> "Bag" == Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes:
Bag> I already have $800 worth of compilers. Unless you can point me Bag> to a lisp compiler for under $20, I'm not interested.
Er, what I think you mean to say is that you've _spent_ $800 on compilers. What they are _worth_ is a separate question.
Bag> Prove to me lisp is worth it.
Not my job. Sorry.
If I were you (and depending on what you are trying to do), I'd ditch the native code requirement for the time being and try out CLISP (<http://clisp.cons.org>). After you've begun to understand Common Lisp, then you might be more willing to spend money on it. Or maybe not.
In other words, prove it to yourself.
Bag> Anything you can do in lisp, I can do in C++.
snicker.
-- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seni...@teleport.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' ''
Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes:
> I already have $800 worth of compilers. Unless you can point me to a > lisp compiler for under $20, I'm not interested.
You spent $800 on other compilers, but don't want to spend more than $20 on a Lisp compiler? Probably, you should stick with the compilers you've got :-)
> Anything you can do in lisp, I can do in C++.
This is certainly true in some sense, but it is a totally meaningless argument when you are comparing languages. In fact, why not get a refund for the $800 and simply write your programs in machine code?
> I am very experienced in several programming languages, and I just > wanted a cost analysis of Lisp that would explain to me why it is > worth buying.
To make an informed decision regarding the suitability of Lisp for your situation you would have to understand the language. This will require some effort. Judging by the tone of your posting, you are not willing to invest in such an effort, neither financially nor in terms of the effort it takes to understand the language. In that case, my advise is to stick with a language you know. If you really want to evaluate the Lisp family of programming languages, I suggest you invest in a good book or two, and get one of the evaluation packages from a Lisp vendor. They all have free evaluation systems for Windows.
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 22:16:30 GMT, Bagheera, the jungle scout wrote: > Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote: >> Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes: >> > I know, someone shoot me in the head, I've gone nuts, >> > but I'm looking for a FREE lisp compiler for the PC. >> > Win95/Win98 or DOS is ok.
There are a couple.
>> > Must be able to compile to native code, and create C/C++ linkable >> > object files. >> On UN*X you can get CMUCL (http://www.cons.org). On the PC platform >> you can get several trial system, but to actually get a native >> compiler you must shell out some Euros. >I already have $800 worth of compilers. Unless you can point me to a >lisp compiler for under $20, I'm not interested.
Plenty of free ones to learn on. If you want more than that, you have to pay for it, either by money or development effort.
>> > Prove to me lisp is worth it. ><snip trvial C++ problem>
Multiple dispatch with optimization is far from trivial -- the fact that you think it is only shows your own inexperience.
>Anything you can do in lisp, I can do in C++. Or any other language for >that matter. True you could get language specific on me and say >something like "make a pointer in Java"...yeah well, you can't, but >there are ways to emulate that behavior. I am very experienced in >several programming languages, and I just wanted a cost analysis of Lisp >that would explain to me why it is worth buying.
Then ask for a cost analysis. It _sounded_ like you wanted a free compiler which did everything you wanted, and you wanted the privledge of acting snippy toward us in the meantime. Sorry, you wanna act like our master you have to pay us :).
>I need analysis on things like learning curve (the people I work with >all learned C++ fairly rapidly, but we are all struggling with >perl...for comparison), included software, optimizations on the native >binary generation, and things like that.
Okay.
Lisp has an IMMENSE number of functions, but a VERY simple language. The total learning effort will be less than C++ with STL (I can't say how much; my information is anecdotal and vague).
Lisp, as a language, offers you TONS of instantly useful utilities -- the memory management alone is worth the learning curve. Add in CLOS and it's a real lifesaver.
The Lisp language specification contains a huge number of useful functions -- so as a library Lisp is very complete. You'll find that you have to do less work to get any given thing finished.
Perl sucks, BTW. Use Python instead, if you can get away with it. If you wind up using Lisp elsewhere, though, you'll likely find yourself using Lisp for your scripting tasks as well -- it's a very flexible language.
>Right now I just want to use lisp because it seems to be the only >langauge AI books speak (and the one that went left field to write a >book using C++ didn't learn C++ well enough before they wrote the book).
I hate that kind of thing. I also dislike pessimistic introductory books -- when I'm learning a language I want to feel that I'm learning a good thing, not something sucky :).
>So I am at an empasse. I want an affordable lisp compiler for Windows, >or an INTELLIGENT explanation of why it is worth what companies charge >for it (on average, it is about 3x the cost of a GOOD professional C++ >compiler).
The main reason, of course, is that comanies charge what the market will bear. The market for Lisp compilers tends to realize that a good Lisp contains a LOT of useful things which no C++ compiler has -- and even a bad one compiles a more complete language than the best C++ compiler can.
* Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> | Anything you can do in lisp, I can do in C++.
sure, but I think people generally expect you to do it in finite time.
| So I am at an empasse. I want an affordable lisp compiler for Windows, | or an INTELLIGENT explanation of why it is worth what companies charge | for it (on average, it is about 3x the cost of a GOOD professional C++ | compiler).
well, assume most companies pay their programmers a lot of money. if you could save 50% on the time it took to complete a project, that'd be worth half a lot of money, which equals _way_ more than the difference between the cost of the compilers.
the reason most managers don't believe it is that they don't actually know what their programmers spend their time on or that it could be spent much more wisely. incidentally, doubling he programmer efficiency is considered weak performance, but it's what you'll get for the first project or two. with very experienced programmers in both C++ and Lisp, you get a factor of 3 to 5 improvement in Lisp's favor, but with people who have spent a year learning their respective language, you should expect a factor 5 to 10 improvement in Lisp's favor. the irony is that it's harder to find very experienced C++ programmers than to find very experienced Lisp programmers, and they cost a _lot_ more.
also, a single good Lisp programmer can easily do more than 20 moderately good C++ programmers in the same time. the reason is team communication overhead, which is necessary because doing C++ stuff all alone is too hard, and you also need to finish in reasonable amount of time. that's why you don't see a lot of advertising for Lisp folks, but a whole lot of advertising for C++ folks.
#:Erik -- save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers
> In article <lw1zch154n....@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>, > Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:
> > Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > > I know, someone shoot me in the head, I've gone nuts, > > > but I'm looking for a FREE lisp compiler for the PC. > > > Win95/Win98 or DOS is ok.
> > > Must be able to compile to native code, and create C/C++ linkable > object > > > files.
> > On UN*X you can get CMUCL (http://www.cons.org). On the PC platform > > you can get several trial system, but to actually get a native > > compiler you must shell out some Euros.
> I already have $800 worth of compilers. Unless you can point me to a > lisp compiler for under $20, I'm not interested.
Ahem! Why did you spend 800 USD on (let's see...) Visual C++ and don't want to spend money on a good CL compiler? (or better, why do you insist on using a Windos platform, when you can move to Linux?)
> > > Prove to me lisp is worth it. > <snip trvial C++ problem>
I would be really interested to see how you managed to do this in a general and systematic way in C++. Really interested. Then I would ask you how much time you spent to set up the infrastructure and debug it, and how much you will have to spend to extend the example (which dealt with multi-method dispatch) to a three way "virtual" functions.
I can tell you the cost of doing this thing in Common Lisp: it is the cost you pay for learning the language, plus the cost of your compiler. Apart form that, a well rounded 0, nil, nada, NULL.
> Anything you can do in lisp, I can do in C++. Or any other language for > that matter.
Of course. I am currently writing programs using the white book Turing Machine specification.
> True you could get language specific on me and say > something like "make a pointer in Java"...yeah well, you can't, but > there are ways to emulate that behavior.
Why would you? Pointers are useless and messy. :) I reach for my garbage collector :) as soon as I see something like
while (*c++) { ... }
> I am very experienced in several programming languages,
But not in the only one that would really make you change your habits.
...
> So I am at an empasse. I want an affordable lisp compiler for Windows, > or an INTELLIGENT explanation of why it is worth what companies charge > for it (on average, it is about 3x the cost of a GOOD professional C++ > compiler).
That is the only point you got rigth. Commercial CL compilers do cost too much w.r.t. C/C++ environments. I agree on that. But this is a problem for Franz and Harlequin managers and marketing directors. Bring it up to them.
Cheers
-- Marco Antoniotti =========================================== PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26 http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
* Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> | Commercial CL compilers do cost too much w.r.t. C/C++ environments.
with respect to the lives and the fortunes they save, they're dirt cheap. with respect to what they make possible, they're also dirt cheap.
note that ANSI standards also cost way too much compared to toilet paper, and the're pretty bad quality as toilet paper goes, too.
I recently bought a fountain pen. it cost the equivalent of about 1500 throw-away ball pens. 1500 ball pens would have made me very frustrated, but this sleek, elegant pen made me happy. I also choose Common Lisp.
#:Erik -- save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers
In article <lwwvu85vur....@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>, Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:
> Ahem! Why did you spend 800 USD on (let's see...) Visual C++
Actually we don't have MSVC. We have: Code Warrior, Watcom, Borland Builder, MASM, and Visual Cafe.
> and don't want to spend money on a good CL compiler? (or better, why > do you insist on using a Windos platform, when you can move to Linux?)
Linux is not an option. All of our clients use Windows. Also, in my group of programmers, only 2 of us knows how to program under unix, and then only with Motif libraries (which are EXPENSIVE).
> > > > Prove to me lisp is worth it. > > <snip trvial C++ problem>
> I would be really interested to see how you managed to do this in a > general and systematic way in C++. Really interested.
If it wouldn't violate my NDA, I would happily explain it to you.
> Of course. I am currently writing programs using the white book > Turing Machine specification.
in the end...it is all machine code.
> Why would you? Pointers are useless and messy. :) I reach for my > garbage collector :) as soon as I see something like
> while (*c++) { ... }
different strokes... I happen to be very comfortable with pointers, and know extremely useful things you can do with them. They happen to be a tool, and if you know how to use your tools to their full potential, they are useful tools.
> > I am very experienced in several programming languages,
> But not in the only one that would really make you change your habits.
conjecture. I'm already mildly familiar with Lisp, I had two classes on it in College, I just want to learn it better so that I can learn Lisp based AI.
> > So I am at an empasse. I want an affordable lisp compiler for Windows, > > or an INTELLIGENT explanation of why it is worth what companies charge > > for it (on average, it is about 3x the cost of a GOOD professional C++ > > compiler).
> That is the only point you got rigth. Commercial CL compilers do cost > too much w.r.t. C/C++ environments. I agree on that. But this is a > problem for Franz and Harlequin managers and marketing directors. > Bring it up to them.
Are there any Lisp compilers that offer student discounts?
* Erik Naggum wrote: > I recently bought a fountain pen. it cost the equivalent of about 1500 > throw-away ball pens. 1500 ball pens would have made me very frustrated, > but this sleek, elegant pen made me happy. I also choose Common Lisp.
Actually fountain pens are really like Lisp. They're both kind of left field -- people look at you a bit oddly when you insist on writing with one. They're not always compatible with things -- lots of paper will blot with fountain pen. Modern ballpoints are gradually working their way up (with spring-loaded balls &c &c) to be half as nice to write with as a fountain pen. They're expensive. They're harder to learn how to use. But they're just infinitely preferable.
--tim (1928 waterman ideal which leaks ink all over my hands)
Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> writes:
> In article <lwwvu85vur....@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>,
> Linux is not an option. All of our clients use Windows. > Also, in my group of programmers, only 2 of us knows how > to program under unix, and then only with Motif libraries (which are > EXPENSIVE).
Lesstif "expensive"?
> > > > > Prove to me lisp is worth it. > > > <snip trvial C++ problem>
> > I would be really interested to see how you managed to do this in a > > general and systematic way in C++. Really interested.
> If it wouldn't violate my NDA, I would happily explain it to you.
I have the hunch that you cannot really explain it because.... you can't do it in C++ :)
> > Of course. I am currently writing programs using the white book > > Turing Machine specification.
> in the end...it is all machine code.
> > Why would you? Pointers are useless and messy. :) I reach for my > > garbage collector :) as soon as I see something like
> > while (*c++) { ... }
> different strokes... > I happen to be very comfortable with pointers, and > know extremely useful things you can do with them.
Yeah! You can write Common Lisp environments :)
> They happen to be a tool, and if you know how to use > your tools to their full potential, they are useful > tools.
Good point. Learn CL using one of the free environments and good books around and then appreciate the "full potential".
> > > I am very experienced in several programming languages,
> > But not in the only one that would really make you change your habits.
> conjecture. > I'm already mildly familiar with Lisp, I had two classes on it > in College, I just want to learn it better so that I can learn > Lisp based AI.
Why not CL based numerical computations. You get almost the same speed as C with CL (and with C you almost get the same speed as FORTRAN).
> Are there any Lisp compilers that offer student discounts?
Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> writes: > * Erik Naggum wrote: > > I recently bought a fountain pen. it cost the equivalent of about 1500 > > throw-away ball pens. 1500 ball pens would have made me very frustrated, > > but this sleek, elegant pen made me happy. I also choose Common Lisp.
> Actually fountain pens are really like Lisp. They're both kind of > left field -- people look at you a bit oddly when you insist on > writing with one. They're not always compatible with things -- lots > of paper will blot with fountain pen. Modern ballpoints are gradually > working their way up (with spring-loaded balls &c &c) to be half as > nice to write with as a fountain pen. They're expensive. They're > harder to learn how to use. But they're just infinitely preferable.
> --tim (1928 waterman ideal which leaks ink all over my hands)
You wrote this article with a fountain pen? Impressive! But how did you digitize it?
-- Duane Rettig Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/ (www) 1995 University Ave Suite 275 Berkeley, CA 94704 Phone: (510) 548-3600; FAX: (510) 548-8253 du...@Franz.COM (internet)
Duane Rettig <du...@franz.com> writes: > Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> writes:
> > * Erik Naggum wrote: > > > I recently bought a fountain pen. it cost the equivalent of about 1500 > > > throw-away ball pens. 1500 ball pens would have made me very frustrated, > > > but this sleek, elegant pen made me happy. I also choose Common Lisp.
> > Actually fountain pens are really like Lisp. They're both kind of > > left field -- people look at you a bit oddly when you insist on > > writing with one. They're not always compatible with things -- lots > > of paper will blot with fountain pen. Modern ballpoints are gradually > > working their way up (with spring-loaded balls &c &c) to be half as > > nice to write with as a fountain pen. They're expensive. They're > > harder to learn how to use. But they're just infinitely preferable.
> > --tim (1928 waterman ideal which leaks ink all over my hands)
> You wrote this article with a fountain pen? Impressive! > But how did you digitize it?
> * Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> > | Anything you can do in lisp, I can do in C++.
> sure, but I think people generally expect you to do it in finite time.
> | So I am at an empasse. I want an affordable lisp compiler for Windows, > | or an INTELLIGENT explanation of why it is worth what companies charge > | for it (on average, it is about 3x the cost of a GOOD professional C++ > | compiler).
> well, assume most companies pay their programmers a lot of money. if you > could save 50% on the time it took to complete a project, that'd be worth > half a lot of money, which equals _way_ more than the difference between > the cost of the compilers.
I agree about this.
> also, a single good Lisp programmer can easily do more than 20 moderately > good C++ programmers in the same time.
but not about this. This is an opinion and not a fact I guess. And maybe you underestimate the C++ programmers. There are surely some under them for whom the other way is as true. I don't have the knowledge and experience to fill this with numbers but some others have found out that under programmers the differences can be very large. But to say this holds for all Common Lisp Programmers is a wild guess.
BTW my opinion towards Common Lisp or another functional language is clear. It's a good idea for any programmer to know at least one imperative (or even object-oriented) language and a functional language.
Another think I think holds is that there aren't a lot of comparisions between e.g C++ and other Languages. I guess we all could learn form that.
In article <lwzoz43xqb....@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>, Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:
> Lesstif "expensive"?
Lesstif is not a full implementation of Motif, and it is NOT "supported".
> > > I would be really interested to see how you managed to do this in a > > > general and systematic way in C++. Really interested.
> > If it wouldn't violate my NDA, I would happily explain it to you.
> I have the hunch that you cannot really explain it because.... you > can't do it in C++ :)
*sigh* I'll give you a hint. It uses RTTI, template classes, function overloading and inheritance.
> > I happen to be very comfortable with pointers, and > > know extremely useful things you can do with them.
> Yeah! You can write Common Lisp environments :)
if I had to I suppose, but you can do alot more than that. especially high end optimizations like poking the system memory and things like that.
> > They happen to be a tool, and if you know how to use > > your tools to their full potential, they are useful > > tools.
> Good point. Learn CL using one of the free environments and good > books around and then appreciate the "full potential".
back to my point...what free environments (unice doesn't count), and especially, what good books. Of the 8 books I've read...they're all crap. C++ has many more gurus capable of writing (as far as I can tell). Are they any books on par with C++ Primer Plus (Mitchel Waite Signature Series)? That is agreed by MANY c++ programmers to be the BEST introductory manual on the language.
> > conjecture. > > I'm already mildly familiar with Lisp, I had two classes on it > > in College, I just want to learn it better so that I can learn > > Lisp based AI.
> Why not CL based numerical computations. You get almost the same > speed as C with CL (and with C you almost get the same speed as > FORTRAN).
If I were using pure numerical computations I would use Miranda or ML. But I don't do pure numerical computations. I am interested in AI, both game based and data mining. Lisp happens to be the most prolific AI language, and therefore the easiest to get examples in. If I had my way, there would be an equal sampling of AI solutions in C/C++, Pascal, Fortran, and other imperative languages as there are in Lisp.
* Friedrich Dominicus | This is an opinion and not a fact I guess.
not just opinion, but the evidence is anecdotal, not fundamental. the reason it doesn't sound unreasonable to me, and in fact sounds reasonable is that when you need, say, 5 times as many programmers to handle the amount of work necessary, you get interaction costs and team overhead that slows everybody down to a quarter of their top speed alone. but you can hardly _do_ C++ work alone, except for fairly small things, like three to six months. if you were to spend 15 to 30 months like that, you'd have really a hard time. a Common Lisp programmer can get the system working in a short time, learn a lot from and develop the software with its users when it's still quite malleable. that's too hard to do in C++, so you also spend more time designing the system before-hand. all of this means more time and the demand to get it coded and deployed means more programmers, which means more team interaction overhead. all of this really adds up.
| And maybe you underestimate the C++ programmers.
(1) you can't underestimate C++ programmers. (the snotty version ;)
(2) no, but you can't hire top-notch C++ programmers for projects like this. top-notch C++ programmers generally develop fundamental stuff like libraries and interface tools, not applications.
#:Erik -- save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers
> ... > Right now I just want to use lisp because it seems to be the only > langauge AI books speak (and the one that went left field to write a > book using C++ didn't learn C++ well enough before they wrote the book).
Ahh, but there is a REASON for that. My view is that good AI authors could certainly use any programming language, and would certainly learn well whichever one they choose.
The reason that so many good AI authors choose Lisp is, as I understand it, because they are interested in expressing concepts, paradigms, algorithms, etc., in the most natural language (whatever that means) for the problem at hand. Now, here's the important thing: NEITHER C++ NOR LISP NOR PROLOG NOR ANY OTHER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE IS THE MOST NATURAL LANGUAGE FOR EXPRESSING EVERY APPLICATION. However, only Lisp brings the whole considerable power of the programming language to bear on the subproblem of CREATING the most natural language for expressing an application.
AI authors don't write in Lisp. They write in application-specific languages that are easily constructed in Lisp and embedded within Lisp.
Your question about seeking a compiler, as opposed to a language implementation or development environment suggests that there may be an important subtelty here that is escaping you. When working with C/C++, the technique for creating an application-specific language involves, for example, using C/C++, lex, yacc, etc., to create a compiler for the new application-specific language. One then writes programs in that language, which may have nothing to do with C or C++. Any experience with C/C++ may or may not help another person in learning the new application-specific language because they may be totally unrelated.
By contrast, new languages are easily embedded in a running Lisp by extending it, not by replacing it. The application runs within the new language which itself runs within the Lisp system. There is no need to write a new compiler, IDE, graphics system, debugger, etc., nor any need to reinvent the standard math, file-system, etc., libraries. (This last point is subtle, too. In Lisp, all the Lisp library utilities, for example, operate on tagged data. The application-specific library doesn't have to do anything special to make the application-specific data types be tagged to, and they can coexist and be used with functions in the standard Lisp library.)
For more information about Lisp, including books appropriate to AI, comparisons with other languages, and listings of available implementations, see http://www.lisp.org.
> Linux is not an option. All of our clients use Windows. > Also, in my group of programmers, only 2 of us knows how > to program under unix, and then only with Motif libraries (which are > EXPENSIVE).
They are? Do *any* commercial Unix systems not bundle them now? Solaris certainly does, HPUX I'm almost sure does, dunno about the rest really. For Linux there is lesstif which is free and I think is pretty close to motif by now.
In article <7qp4b1$qm...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bagheera, the jungle scout <baghe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> If I were using pure numerical computations I would use Miranda or ML. > But I don't do pure numerical computations. I am interested in AI, both > game based and data mining. Lisp happens to be the most prolific AI > language, and therefore the easiest to get examples in. If I had my > way, there would be an equal sampling of AI solutions in C/C++, Pascal, > Fortran, and other imperative languages as there are in Lisp.
Hey, why don't you go to the comp.lang.prolog folks and leave this newsgroup alone?
>>>>> "Marco" == Marco Antoniotti <marc...@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:
Marco> Why not CL based numerical computations. You get almost the same Marco> speed as C with CL (and with C you almost get the same speed as Marco> FORTRAN).
This is not always true (same speed as C with CL), as was demonstrated here a few weeks ago. The DCT code was significantly slower (50% or more? I don't remember) in Lisp than C, even when both versions had the same algorithm.
Also, has C finally caught up with Fortran? I thought the aliasing issues in C prevents C compilers from making the same optimizations Fortran compilers could do because the language specifies that aliasing doesn't happen.
I would recoomed Graham's "ANSI Common Lisp" and "On Lisp" (probably in that sequence) and Norvig's "Paradaigms in AI ..." These are the ones I have and like.
At some point Tanimoto had an AI textbook that [I believe] came with a Lisp interpreter. If it is still in print, you might want to check it out also. I should warn you, though, that the copy I am familiar with came with a dynamic scoping mini-Lisp.
Also check out SICP (Sructure and Interpretation of Computer Programs by Abelson & Sussman). This book uses Scheme. It is the best inroductory book I know of. You might want to first check the comments at amazon.com on this book and see which bunch (lovers and haters of the book) you identify yourself with.
> * Friedrich Dominicus > | This is an opinion and not a fact I guess.
> not just opinion, but the evidence is anecdotal, not fundamental.
^^^^^^^^^
That means to me. Hey I don't have numbers I just tell you some stories. That's an opinion so much said.
the
> reason it doesn't sound unreasonable to me, and in fact sounds reasonable > is that when you need, say, 5 times as many programmers to handle the > amount of work necessary, you get interaction costs and team overhead > that slows everybody down to a quarter of their top speed alone. but you > can hardly _do_ C++ work alone, except for fairly small things, like > three to six months.
<irony> So C++ is better suited for cooperative work. Now I understand why e.g KDE is written using C++ an not Common Lisp. You just can code CL alone ;-) And fair enougth that desktop has found it's place on a lot of computers. I don't have heard or seen one of this things for CL. All that lead to the conclusion, that you can't use CL for that. </irony>
So this is a conclusion from your mail. Do programming on you own with Common Lisp but if you want to work with other uses C++. (that is ancecdotal evidence)
> | And maybe you underestimate the C++ programmers.
> (1) you can't underestimate C++ programmers. (the snotty version ;)
and of cours you can't overestimate Common Lisp programmers. They are per defintion supirior to all other crap which is around. ;-).
Interesing enought the crap buils stuff which is used for many and the all-so supierour Lispers ...
