>>>>> "Siegfried" == Siegfried Gonzi <siegfried.go...@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes:
Siegfried> S. Gonzi Siegfried> [By the way. I do not think that Franz Inc. is that devil. I cannot Siegfried> imagine that a company is greedy when they also give defacto free Lisp Siegfried> versions for Linux.]
What does "defacto free" mean?
And I don't consider it free. It used to be free, but nowadays it's really an evaluation copy. Use it, evaluate it, and then either buy it or throw it away after some fixed period. Unlike Lispworks, where you can use it "forever" (I think).
Ray
P.S. I'm not bashing Franz for this change. They have to make money after all and if they collapsed because they gave away Lisp for Linux, I wouldn't be happy, even though I don't have any Franz product.
> Why do you feel under attack because I want enthusiasm and optimism and > love of the language? Why do you have to stage an all-out war against me > just because I want people to love what they do? What is wrong with you?
> What are you _really_ trying to defend with your amazing lunacy? Do you > feel that you would be squeezed out of the Common Lisp community because > you are a sourpuss who wants to destroy the language and its usability?
> ///
There seems to be disease-of-the-day:
To critizize and question every suggestion, decision, institution and motive. My wife works at a big accounting firm and she had a conversation with one of the older managers there. He commented on how people are now hired for a certain skill set, to do a certain job, refuse to take any directions (to be told what to do), and question everything to the point where nothing gets done. He said in his day that when the boss told him to do something (and something he had not done before, or was hired to do) he said "Yes Sir" and just went and did it. Everybody is a know-it-all these days. Humility is part of the road to understanding.
When I was younger learning to program was like that, I took what I was given, I did not question if was the right way or the best way. I just did it, I had the underlying assumption that what I was using was created by some people who knew what they were doing. If it does not, what does it matter? If CL is not the final word, or the best word, what does it matter? I use it now because it is a labour of love. I still strive to have that beginner's mind, because its the only time that I can learn.
Siegfried Gonzi <siegfried.go...@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes: > [barbarically wrenched from surrounding context,] Erik Naggum wrote:
> > Then I have no reason to expect anything from this community at all and > > the vendors are indeed right to denounce their own livelihood and try to
[...]
> a) Why do expect anything from the community; or better: why should the > community care on Naggum?
There are three reasons I can think of for your having asked that question
One is that you don't understand what a community is. A community is not just a random collection of people, it's a group of people who have a common purpose or a common interest. Given a common cause and a collection of normal socially adjusted people, it's _inevitable_ that they will care about each other.
The second is that you don't believe Erik is part of the CL community. There are two things I'd like to say here: (1) of course he bloody well is! (2) supposing that there were any doubt, would you rather be part of an open and welcoming community, or would you rather make newcomers sit a written entrance test and swear allegiance to the flag before you let them in? David Miller tells a story about the first email exchange he had with Linus Torvalds, where he describes the "dumb question" he asked, and the considered response he got encouraging him to go on and hack on it and "assuming I knew what I was doing". "This is cool. Why would I not want to work on a project run by guys like that?". Davem later went on to port Linux to the SPARC architecture, and has also hacked on SGI, networking and the VM system.
The third is that you're questioning whether a community even exists at all. In my darker moments I have doubts. I think there's the basis of one. I don't think it's particularly cohesive. I _think_ (this is just gut feeling, I have no evidence) that it's picked up somewhat over the last couple of years. I do know that an atmosphere where people look like they're unhappy with their tools and like they mistrust and don't respect each other is not conducive to its growth. I'm spending less and less time reading c.l.l lately because it's just too damn depressing.
> * In message <3208226254834...@naggum.net> > * On the subject of "What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community" > * Sent on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:57:38 GMT > * Honorable Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes:
> standard pathnames are broken by design so not supported
according to the Christophe Rhodes' tests, the current development CLISP is more compliant than CMUCL 18c wrt pathnames.
> These are not best efforts that fall short for lack of resources > and that will be fixed given the resources. These are _intentional_ > violations. I call them "political bugs".
All differences between "clisp -ansi" and ANSI CL are due to lack of resources. We will gladly accept patches and constructive discussion towards full ANSI compliance. Please subscribe to <clisp-list> and write there. This has been stated so many times that I fail to see the reason for your rudeness.
PS. I do love ANSI CL, and I don't think I need to be taught how to love.
Joe Nall <j...@nall.com> writes: > installation is a thing of beauty. I'm sure that the major Lisp vendors > have regression test suites - perhaps one would be willing to open > source their suite to jump start such an effort.
There's some portion of a CL conformance test in CLOCC already. There are also Christophe's Rhodes (work in progress) pathname tests which were discussed here recently that could be integrated into that framework; also there's the beginnings of a test suite for SBCL in the SBCL source archive. Some of that will be SBCL specific, but I think it includes at least some ansi conformance tests too.
So, sure it would be nice if one of the vendors were to contribute towards this effort, but it's a project where users can work on an equal footing too.
> Are there any Common Lisp test harness setups, like Perl's Test.pm, that > might be used as a basis for package level self test?
There's XPTEST from Onshore (see CLiki) and there's RT in the CMU AI Repo (which I would love someone to package for cCLan because then I could remove the copy hidden inside db-sockets). I've also heard of something called which may be called "CL Unit", but I can't find that right now.
Sam Steingold <s...@gnu.org> writes: > All differences between "clisp -ansi" and ANSI CL are due to lack of > resources. We will gladly accept patches and constructive > discussion towards full .ANSI compliance.
This is certainly nice to hear said.
Btw, in discussing the issue of conformance, and the related issue of whether :ANSI-CL should be on the *FEATURES* list, that's why we created the notion of "purporting to conform". Without this, every time you discovered a bug, you'd have to remove the :ANSI-CL feature until you fixed it. To me, at least, this underscores that compliance is to some extent just an issue of "intent" as much as anything else. I've often said informally that what it means for an implementation to conform is to happily accept bug reports.
Btw, I don't know to what extent clisp is merely "missing functionality" and to what extent it's repairing a prior set of deviations from standard functionality, but if it's mostly the former, then claiming to conform to a subset is perhaps the appropriate interim terminology. (I'm quite curious how far it is from being totally conforming, actually, though I suppose I should go check out the web site. I think I tried to do that the other day, but the site wasn't responding...)
> However, there is something _very_ seriously wrong with the Common Lisp > community. People _in_ the community feel that it is perfectly OK to > debase, denigrate, ridicule, denounce, disrespect, insult, defame, and > smear Common Lisp. Instead of telling people how great a language we > have, some certifiable nutcases spend their time propagandizing and > agitating against the language, creating stupid deviant versions and > breaking with the language as defined, doing something other than what > was agreed upon, and introducing "features" that cause the knowledge base > for the language to be polluted and the skill of knowing Common Lisp to > be nigh worthless when faced with individual Common Lisp systems.
While I hope this is an exageration of the reality I agree there is this tendency and it is a negative one though it need not be. I think it stems from two things, one a good thing one not.
The bad: people are letting the pressure of mainstream opinion beat them down. Even if they like lisp, they get so much flack from others who know nothing about it, they feel they have to put it down themselves. A "herd mentality"takes over, even though they want to be different, they are afraid of what it really requires.
The good: lisp people tend to be the kind of people who question things and think hard about elegance and the Right Thing (certainly compared to most of the other large programming communities) People who question find fault. But I agree with Erik that this can be done in a constructive and positive way without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"
> Can we do this? Can people who are still enthusiastic about Common Lisp > the language, even after reading a 20K long news article, please raise a > hand and express their feelings? Can you stand up and say "I _love_ > Common Lisp!" in a crowd and feel proud of yourself?
I _Love_ Common Lisp!
(I am also blessed to have worked with it in my last two jobs as well as my current position!)
> I actually believe thare are enough Common Lisp enthusiasts out there to > make a difference
> All differences between "clisp -ansi" and ANSI CL are due to lack of > resources.
This is a
> We will gladly accept patches and constructive discussion towards full > ANSI compliance. Please subscribe to <clisp-list> and write there. > This has been stated so many times that I fail to see the reason for > your rudeness.
I installed the latest available version of CLISP for GNU/Debian unstable because I was going bananas over the incompetence of a web designer who was supposed to help us get a secure news server with a web interface for user registration up and running in two weeks and I needed something to help save the day. I am quite happy to say that CLISP saved the project and let me produce web pages efficiently and correctly, and I had no clue to how this should be done using available tools when I started, which is why I _had_ to use Common Lisp so I at least had some firm ground under my feet. However, what I quoted from the man page is precisely among the things that have put me off CLISP for many years. Remove the denigratory remarks about how ANSI CL is broken and how standard behavior "is not useful for actual everyday work". If I want somebody's snotty opinions on the standard, I shall ask for it. I do not want them in a man page for a purportedly conforming implementation that I want to use because I am excited about the language. This has to do with the _professionalism_ in the community, not with conformance or how right anyone are about their comments. Professionals set aside their personal opinions when they do their work and focus on the work at hand.
Raymond Toy <t...@rtp.ericsson.se> writes: > And I don't consider it free. It used to be free, but nowadays it's > really an evaluation copy. Use it, evaluate it, and then either buy > it or throw it away after some fixed period. Unlike Lispworks, where > you can use it "forever" (I think).
Actually, we recently revised http://www.franz.com/downloads/ to remove the 6 month limit. Also, the 30-day renewal period has been changed to 60 days (automatically renewed via a program).
> * In message <sfwelpsdv2e....@world.std.com> > * On the subject of "Re: What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community" > * Sent on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:59:37 GMT > * Honorable Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> writes:
> > All differences between "clisp -ansi" and ANSI CL are due to lack of > > resources. We will gladly accept patches and constructive > > discussion towards full .ANSI compliance.
> Btw, I don't know to what extent clisp is merely "missing > functionality" and to what extent it's repairing a prior set of > deviations from standard functionality,
the former. please see http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#intro for the list of symbols missing from CLISP (actually, the pretty-printer has been almost implemented in the CVS, so the list will go down with the next release). see http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#ansi for the explanation of what the -ansi option is about.
the page is accessible to me right now. sorry about the outage (even though it was not my fault :-)
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:57:38 GMT, Erik Naggum wrote:
> > [... 9 pages of interesting thoughts and statements ...]
[snip] > other people about LISP and how great a language it is. The key word to all > that, however, is "language". In your article you made an impression
Hmm. You need to get the actors right: "While reading your article I formed the impression..."
> that > LISP is a religion or at least a philosophy
Even if you got this "impression", it's clearly not what he wrote. Furthermore, it's clearly possible for Erik to have written what he wrote WITHOUT him thinking that (since, after all, he doesn't think that, AFICT, and he wrote that article; *ad esse, ad posse est*).
(Furthermore, I think he went out of his way to convey his lack of that belief.)
> and that un-believers (so-called > "destructive/rabid nut-cases" or "negative morons") are sent by the satan.
No, if they were *just* sent from Satan, and had the wide array of talents being in Satan's employ required *and used them to promote Lisp and its community*, or merely refrained from harming it, I think Erik would embrace them. Gingerly perhaps, depending on the number of infectious lesions on their skin or psyches, but embraced them nevertheless.
> The problem here (IMHO, of course) is that LISP is _not_ a religion and it > _not_ even a philosophy, instead it _is_ a tool and it _has_ good and bad > sides.
Even if Erik had argued the contrary, what you say is rather tendentious. Read Kent Pitman's aritcle on languages as political parties. Even if you *don't agree*, I don't see that you get to *blindly* and *without evidence* assert the contrary.
In any case, Erik wasn't talking about Common Lisp, the language *alone*. He was discussing the community of developers, designers, users, enthusiaists, venders, writers, etc. that have have the langauge more or less as a focal point, or, at least, a principle shared concern.
That community isn't a tool. Indeed, for everyone in, of, or around that community to treat it as a tool, and a tool they don't care to treat properly, would be rather damaging.
> Moreover, people who choose to be blind when it comes to the bad sides
Unlike Erik...
> and to the fact that standards change and new needs arrive,
Unlike Erik...
> _can_ be called > "religious zealots".
Unlike Erik...
...but even so, why call them religious zealots? On most issues it's not at all clear cut (i.e., that the feature is bad, that it's so bad we must thrash it and anyone who's thought about using it immediately, and that there's a superior alternative so much so that everyone should...nay *MUST* adopt it...NOW).
(If you *really have* such a superior alternative, most of the time it should stand on it's own. I.e., if it's so great just *show* it, maybe talk it up. I don't see that it actually helps, except in limited cases, to trash what it purports to replace. Indeed, Erik said this only about 10,000 times :))
And why call them religious zealots? Interestingly, Common Lisp *is* born of a philosophy...one that Kent (and others) have explained over and over. Roughly, "a common, standard base that we all can agree to live with". I think it reflects well on the community that embraced this philosophy that the result is *also* engaging, interesting, practical, and worth studying and use and getting enthusiastic about.
Alas, the ANSI Smalltalk standard hasn't similarly succeeded (although, it's sorta young in that cycle). Partly, it defined so much less, and *didn't* standardize a lot of the stuff that Smalltalkers get enthused about (graphics, guis, the ide, etc.) So we tend to have different rallying points (Camp Smalltalk, mostly; roughly, a party, often associated with a conference, where a bunch of Smalltalkers get together and work on cross-dialect/implementation projects; a report from the latest: http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com/html/CSEssen2001_1.html; the CSt wiki: http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/CampSmalltalk).
[snip hammer stuff]
FWIW, if you thought you were being simple, sensible, and consilitory, and even if what you wrote up to this point *was* so, I would find the hammer stuff irritating were I in Erik's place. I mean, really.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote in message <news:3208254606019619@naggum.net>... > * Alain Picard <apic...@optushome.com.au> > > But, now, Erik, do you _really_ think you are helping your own cause by > > calling people "moron" and "corpses"? Don't tell me whether or not they > > _are_, I don't care about that. I mean, calling people that _publicly_, > > do you really think that helps? Maybe it does. Shock therapy, who > > knows. But I'm not very convinced.
> Shock therapy it is. But also an attempt to show those who denounce the > language and the great stuff that I love and want to use what it feels > like to be denounced. Believe you me, they recognize this and they do > feel it.
But why sbould they have to be shown what it feels like to be denounced? They didn't denounce *you*, they denounced (a tiny part of) a programming language.
Your behavior reminds me of a child on a schoolyard playground. Someone makes a disparaging comment about your favorite toy, and you respond by hitting them and throwing a tantrum. You've been throwing these tantrums for years now. Have they helped?
Let me try to short-circuit some of this conversation by anticipating your answer. You are going to say something along the lines of: "Yes, they've helped, because they drive away fucking morons like you, Erann Gat, who clutter up this newsgroup with mindless drivel about politeness and false accusations of neo-naziism."
Fine. (You're right, by the way. You actually did drive me away.) But while you mold this newsgroup into your perfect little cadre of Erik Naggum sycophants the language you claim to love so much is withering and dieing, and you don't even notice. You talk about "the Lisp vendors." Well, I've got news for you, Erik Naggum: there is only one Lisp vendor left. All the others are out of business.
> languages thrive only when people love them
You are wrong, Erik Naggum. Do you really think C++ and Java thrive because people love them? Ridiculous. Languages thrive because people *use* them, not because people love them. So Erik, please stop trying to convince people to love Common Lisp. Your brand of love is poison.
> * In message <3208266416884...@naggum.net> > * On the subject of "Re: What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community" > * Sent on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:06:58 GMT > * Honorable Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes:
> * Sam Steingold <s...@gnu.org> > > All differences between "clisp -ansi" and ANSI CL are due to lack of > > resources.
> This is a
...what?
> I installed the latest available version of CLISP for GNU/Debian > unstable [...] to help save the day. I am quite happy to say that > CLISP saved the project and let me produce web pages efficiently and > correctly,...
I am quite happy to hear this.
> Professionals set aside their personal opinions when > they do their work and focus on the work at hand.
exactly.
so when you have "work at hand", you use CLISP (or ACL, or whatever tool you want) and act as a professional, and when writing to c.l.l, you badmouth the people who brought it to you. makes sense: you are not at work and you do not have to act as a professional. :-) BTW, why don't you direct at least some of your venom to GCL? It does not even purport to comply!
As to the passages on the CLISP pages which disturb you so much - well, CLISP is a large project, and I am not done with it yet. :-) Please send patches, to the pages and to the CLISP sources.
> But why sbould they have to be shown what it feels like to be denounced? > They didn't denounce *you*, they denounced (a tiny part of) a programming > language.
No, Erann, that is where you are wrong.
> Your behavior reminds me of a child on a schoolyard playground.
I am quite sure it does. Children in schoolyard playgrounds also appeal to a sense of justice, they have an elaborate sense of fairness, and they believe in such trivial things as standardization processes. What things remind you of says something very fundamental about yourself. If I were you, I would have chosen to tell people I was reminded of something else.
> Someone makes a disparaging comment about your favorite toy, and you > respond by hitting them and throwing a tantrum. You've been throwing > these tantrums for years now. Have they helped?
This is the level at which you would operate. I am so glad I am not like that.
> Let me try to short-circuit some of this conversation by anticipating > your answer. You are going to say something along the lines of: "Yes, > they've helped, because they drive away fucking morons like you, Erann > Gat, who clutter up this newsgroup with mindless drivel about politeness > and false accusations of neo-naziism."
Amazing. What kind of immature behavior does _this_ remind you of?
> Fine. (You're right, by the way. You actually did drive me away.) > But while you mold this newsgroup into your perfect little cadre of > Erik Naggum sycophants the language you claim to love so much is > withering and dieing, and you don't even notice. You talk about "the > Lisp vendors." Well, I've got news for you, Erik Naggum: there is > only one Lisp vendor left. All the others are out of business.
I am so delighted that you actually managed to get the ideas I tried to communicate and were not stuck in your old rut and just dug up some old dirt you could throw at me. That would have been so -- childish.
> You are wrong, Erik Naggum. Do you really think C++ and Java thrive > because people love them? Ridiculous. Languages thrive because people > *use* them, not because people love them. So Erik, please stop trying to > convince people to love Common Lisp. Your brand of love is poison.
I love you, too, Erann Gat. Now, is your recess over, yet?
> so when you have "work at hand", you use CLISP (or ACL, or whatever tool > you want) and act as a professional, and when writing to c.l.l, you > badmouth the people who brought it to you.
Are you incapable of understanding that _you_ have done something that you could very easily correct to avoid all criticism? Is that you want to _insist_ on badmouthing the standard that you fail to understand that you _deserve_ this criticism?
> BTW, why don't you direct at least some of your venom to GCL?
Because they do not gratuitously defame that which they purport to conform to.
> It does not even purport to comply!
Bingo! Please get the idea.
> As to the passages on the CLISP pages which disturb you so much - well, > CLISP is a large project, and I am not done with it yet. :-) Please send > patches, to the pages and to the CLISP sources.
>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Layer <la...@--you-know-what-to-remove--.franz.com> writes:
Kevin> Raymond Toy <t...@rtp.ericsson.se> writes: >> And I don't consider it free. It used to be free, but nowadays it's >> really an evaluation copy. Use it, evaluate it, and then either buy >> it or throw it away after some fixed period. Unlike Lispworks, where >> you can use it "forever" (I think).
Kevin> Actually, we recently revised http://www.franz.com/downloads/ to Kevin> remove the 6 month limit. Also, the 30-day renewal period has been Kevin> changed to 60 days (automatically renewed via a program).
Cool! I don't get to use Linux and lisp too often, so I don't keep up.
Christophe> Sam Steingold <s...@gnu.org> writes: >> BTW, why don't you direct at least some of your venom to GCL? >> It does not even purport to comply!
Christophe> If it doesn't purport to comply, it's not bound by the standard.
Christophe> Now, if only it would drop the "CL" bit, too...
But I think it does claim to be a CLtL1 compatible and I think it is reasonably close to that.
Sad to say, but Bill Schelter, the prime mover behind GCL and maxima, has recently passed away.
> * In message <3208273247172...@naggum.net> > * On the subject of "Re: What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community" > * Sent on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:00:48 GMT > * Honorable Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes:
> Are you incapable of understanding that _you_ have done something > that you could very easily correct to avoid all criticism?
criticism, yes. I welcome criticism, especially on <clisp-list> which is more accessible to me that c.l.l.
insults - no. I think your choice of words is pretty insulting.
> > It does not even purport to comply! > Bingo! Please get the idea.
but it is _called_ "Common Lisp"! :-)
> > As to the passages on the CLISP pages which disturb you so much - well, > > CLISP is a large project, and I am not done with it yet. :-) Please send > > patches, to the pages and to the CLISP sources.
> You know what fix.
maybe, but how am I supposed to know what changes would satisfy you?! :-)
>>>>> "SS" == Sam Steingold <s...@gnu.org> writes:
[...] EN> You know what fix.
SS> maybe, but how am I supposed to know what changes would SS> satisfy you?! :-)
I'll hazard a guess:
(From the clisp man page dated 31 May 2001, on Debian sid, v2.27)
... -ansi ANSI CL compliant: Comply with the ANSI CL specifi cation even on those issues where ANSI CL is bro ken. This option is provided for maximum portabil ity of Lisp programs, and is not useful for actual everyday work. It sets the symbol macro *ansi* to t. See impnotes.html, section "Maximum ANSI CL compliance", for details. ...
the fix could be
-ansi ANSI CL compliant. See impnotes.html, section "Maximum ANSI CL compliance", for details.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:35:44 -0500, Joe Nall <j...@nall.com> wrote: > Are there any Common Lisp test harness setups, like Perl's Test.pm, that > might be used as a basis for package level self test?
Check the ANSI test suite which comes with CLOCC. I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know how complete it is.
