In article <3052030527425...@naggum.no> Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no>
wrote:

EN> [Dylan gives you] _all_ of the Lisp goodies?  except macros,
EN> except `read' on source code, except `pprint', except ...

I seem to remember a posting by Scott Fahlman on comp.lang.dylan
saying that they were expecting to extend Dylan with abstract syntax
data-structures in order to give it eval-twice macros and ease
implementation of hygienic macro systems.  Of course, the abstract
syntax would be based on objects, not on list structure.

The point is that you do not need to have Lisp syntax in order to have
macros, read and pprint.  However, read and pprint are
trivial to implement with Lisp syntax, and might be a little more
bothersome with infix syntax.  Not actually difficult, just
unpleasant.

In article <3052030527425...@naggum.no> Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no>
wrote:

EN> [Dylan gives you] _all_ of the Lisp goodies?  except macros,
EN> except `read' on source code, except `pprint', except ...

I seem to remember a posting by Scott Fahlman on comp.lang.dylan
saying that they were expecting to extend Dylan with abstract syntax
data-structures in order to give it eval-twice macros and ease
implementation of hygienic macro systems.  Of course, the abstract
syntax would be based on objects, not on list structure.

The point is that you do not need to have Lisp syntax in order to have
macros, read and pprint.  However, read and pprint are
trivial to implement with Lisp syntax, and might be a little more
bothersome with infix syntax.  Not actually difficult, just
unpleasant.

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

|   The point is that you do not need to have Lisp syntax in order to have
|   macros, read and pprint.  However, read and pprint are trivial to
|   implement with Lisp syntax, and might be a little more bothersome with
|   infix syntax.  Not actually difficult, just unpleasant.

Of course, some of us do remember when Dylan had both a prefix and an infix
syntax and transformation between them was supposed to be straight-forward.
And I do wonder what was actually gained by dropping the prefix syntax.

Sigh.

--
mailto:Patrick_D_Lo...@ccm.hf.intel.com

Has anyone checked out the STELLA language concept, which can be
translated into either Common LISP or C++?

It's part of the LOOM project at ISI (http://www.isi.edu), and it doesn't
seem to be available independently.  PowerLOOM, which is planned to be
available in Dec. 96, is written in STELLA, as is much of STELLA itself
(apparently).

"STELLA resembles a simplified version of Lisp, extended to include
strong typing and a modern object system."  -- from
http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/Stella/index.html

Apologies if everyone already knows about this.

In article <TMB.96Sep24192...@best.best.com>
           t...@intentionally.blank-see.headers  writes:

Perl is incredibly safe.

But I've been saying this for the last couple of weeks. If you're
still wondering why Apple made the change to Dylan, perhaps you'd
better ask them. Alternately, ask CMU and Harlequin why they've
not restored the old Lisp-style syntax.

In future, I'll abbreviate this to just two words: historical
baggage. I think you'll know what I mean. ;-) I'm reminded of
the opening sequence of Trainspotting for some reason.

In article <JKF.96Sep24111...@tiger.Franz.com>
           j...@Franz.com "Sean Foderaro" writes:

Perhaps someday I'll add a meta-language (either compiling to CL,
or interpreting) for CGI, and a compiler that can create C++ code
for ISAPI DLLs. While I can justify doing this for fun, it might
also one day save me some time and effort.

Thanks for the ftp client. I'll play with it in a few days - right
now, I have some C code to port from Unix to Win32. Eventually, I'll
do some more work on my http server.

In article <843654928...@wildcard.demon.co.uk>,

Anyway, doesn't Allegro Win already provide dynamic linking to
DLL's?  

[Erik Naggum]

|   Of course, some of us do remember when Dylan had both a prefix and an infix
|   syntax and transformation between them was supposed to be straight-forward.
|   And I do wonder what was actually gained by dropping the prefix syntax.

[Cyber Surfer]

|   A larger market, perhaps?  I'd guess that Apple saw it that way, being
|   Apple.  If your platform is one where most programmers are currently
|   using C++, which I suspect may be the case with the Mac, then Dylan as
|   it exists today may be more attractive to C++ than Lisp dialects such
|   as CL and Scheme.

You're not paying attention to what I'm writing.  My question was about
dropping the prefix syntax, not about gaining the infix syntax, since Dylan
had both to begin with.  The infix syntax should have had sufficient light
to attract the common houseflies.

Again, I wonder what was _actually_ gained by dropping the prefix syntax.

In article <dlamkins-ya023080002509962113550...@news.teleport.com>
           dlamk...@teleport.com "David B. Lamkins" writes:

Like it or not, some clients don't use Lisp for their web servers.

So, you see, I _was_ paying attention. I think that you're just
failing to understand the extent of the problem. Think of non-Lisp
programmers as idiots to have to be guided gently to enlightenment.
If we push them with cattle-prods, they'll run away and play with
C++ for the next few decades. Everytime they think of Lisp or Dylan,
they'll remember how much it hurt.

A few of us will be priviledged enough to not have to worry about
this. I'll gladly write Lisp code for food, but nobody is asking
me to, or any other Windows developer I know. I blame memes from
MS for this sad state of affairs, and a complacency from the Lisp
community. On the other, to be fair, it looks like not many Lisp
people are using Windows, so why care?

I only care coz I've use Lisp for some of my own projects, and
I'd love to use it for the stuff I get paid for. Nobody I know
gives a shit about that, but it doesn't change how I feel. I still
prefer Lisp every time - it just makes no difference when I have
a deadline to meet, as it's always easier to use C/C++ instead.
It should be different, but the tools available for C/C++ (for
Windows) do actually make it _easier_. Go figure.

Yes, I should be writing Lisp code to make it easier to do these
things in Lisp, but as I've said repeatadly, I'm not paid to write
Lisp code - how do I get the time to use Lisp? How do we convince
the idiots who insist one creating and _selling_ so many C++ tools
that they should be using Lisp? While those tools exist in such
abundance, developers will be expected to use them.

Would anyone like to form a Lisp Developers Revolutionary Front,
and bomb the next C++ developers convention? ;-) I'm only asking
because it apears that the Lisp software available today ain't
good enough to stop these bastards. I don't think that bombs will,
either - there's too much money backing them.

Still, I can't shake the feeling of heresy whenever I think about
using Lisp to write software which so many people say MUST be written
in C++. Why is that? I know Lisp can, at least in theory, be used
to write exactly the same software as C++, but how do I convince
somebody who doesn't know Lisp as well as I do that this is possible?
If somebody can tell me that CGI code using ISAPI, or a general DLL,
or perhaps even an ActiveX control, can be written using Brand X,
then I'll be happy to buy a copy and use it to convince other people
that it can be done.

[Cyber Surfer]

|   While you and I may appreciate the elegance of the traditional Lisp
|   syntax, anyone new to Lisp will _not_.

Fact: people discover Lisp all the time, and enjoy it, play with it, use
it.

Fact: people discover your articles, and think that Lisp is dead and that
only whining losers would use Lisp if it _were_ alive.

If you want to hurt Lisp even more than you already have, go on, whine and
complain and portray Lisp as the last remnants of a class society bemoaned
only by the withering nobility.

If you want to help Lisp thrive and become what you whine and complain that
it is not, leave it to people competent and in position to do something
about it, don't destroy their chances at success by poisoning their well.

You said you were writing a Lisp to C system for your own use.  Embellish
it to produce that abominable C++ code your _environment_ wants as input
from you.  Nobody should be interested in the tools you use as long as the
product you deliver meets the (tacit and explicit) requirements that would
have been met if you had used the tools they think you're using.  I know
this works, because this is how I moved to programming in Lisp from menial
labor in C and C++.

Why memes from MS? MS only jumped on the C++ bandwagon after other companies
did. MS is not the source of all of the software world's ills. In fact, I
seem to remember some (apocryphal?) quote from Bill Gates about Dylan, which
was very positive.

   I only care coz I've use Lisp for some of my own projects, and
   I'd love to use it for the stuff I get paid for. Nobody I know
   gives a shit about that, but it doesn't change how I feel. I still
   prefer Lisp every time - it just makes no difference when I have
   a deadline to meet, as it's always easier to use C/C++ instead.
   It should be different, but the tools available for C/C++ (for
   Windows) do actually make it _easier_. Go figure.

   Yes, I should be writing Lisp code to make it easier to do these
   things in Lisp, but as I've said repeatadly, I'm not paid to write
   Lisp code - how do I get the time to use Lisp? How do we convince
   the idiots who insist one creating and _selling_ so many C++ tools
   that they should be using Lisp? While those tools exist in such
   abundance, developers will be expected to use them.

This worldview contains some very strange reasoning. In fact, you paint
yourself an idiot, just like those C++ vendors, since you admit yourself
that you choose to use C++ in spite of its perceived flaws. I suppose
the tool vendors share your view that there is no money in Li$p.

   Would anyone like to form a Lisp Developers Revolutionary Front,
   and bomb the next C++ developers convention? ;-) I'm only asking
   because it apears that the Lisp software available today ain't
   good enough to stop these bastards. I don't think that bombs will,
   either - there's too much money backing them.

Your money too, apparently! Why not buy a Lisp compiler, and start
writing apps, or libraries that make programming in Windows easier, or
whatever?

   Still, I can't shake the feeling of heresy whenever I think about
   using Lisp to write software which so many people say MUST be written
   in C++. Why is that? I know Lisp can, at least in theory, be used
   to write exactly the same software as C++, but how do I convince
   somebody who doesn't know Lisp as well as I do that this is possible?

Why be so concerned with convincing people? Use Lisp, do it better and faster
and with fewer bugs and comparable performance, and smart programmers will
be convinced. If you can't, maybe you should be open to the possibility that
C++ (or VB, or Delphi, or Java, or ...) is better for some things.

Having things change on the archive would make Lisp appear alive and
well.  As it is, it looks rather dead.

In article <ROGOFF.96Sep27153...@sccm.Stanford.EDU>
           rog...@sccm.stanford.edu "Brian Rogoff" writes:

Some people here have suggested that Lisp can do the same things.
For example, if you use CL-HTTP. This may be true, but for some
odd reason most people want to use more "conventional" web servers.
Take a look at the comp.infosystems.www.servers.* newsgroups.
Why? It may be that they're simply ignorant of Lisp and software
like CL-HTTP. Would _you_ like to disillusion them? You'll need
a working example to offer as an alternative, as they'll be _very_
sceptical. Some people will even argue over which OS should be
used, never mind which _language_.

I can barely keep up with the tools I'm paid to use, never
mind develop new ones that work very differently, in Lisp.

Would coding in Lisp make Windows development easier? Sorry
for being obsessed with a single platform, but that's the only
one I'm currently using. It's also a rather significant one,
considering the size of the market for Windows software.

In the case of ACL, I'd guess that it isn't loading a dialog
from the resource file. While I like the Interface Builder,
and the way it integrates with Lisp, this isn't the Windows
way of doing it. Consequently, it loses an edge that is a
major feature of Windows apps: to let Windows do a lot of
the hard work for an app. Issues like internationalisation
could be handled by adding code to the Interface Builder, or
by post-processing the code that it generates. We can still
say that Windows development tools already handle this.

So, is Lisp necessarily better? I'm not sure. ACL suffers
when you look at it from this point of view, which might be
expected for a Windows development tool. It's an excellent
_Lisp_ development tool. You might be amazed at how much
attention Windows people pay to the user interface, or how
critical people can be of apps that don't meet the high
standards set by the best Windows apps.

As for convincing people, like clients and employers, are
you suggesting that their opinions don't matter? Who the hell
is going to pay for the apps? These things _do_ matter, unless
you're self-employed or running the company yourself. I've
been unemployed long enough to appreciate this.

 > Fact: people discover your articles, and think that Lisp is dead and that
 > only whining losers would use Lisp if it _were_ alive. > > If you want to
 hurt Lisp even more than you already have, go on, whine and > complain and
 portray Lisp as the last remnants of a class society bemoaned > only by the
 withering nobility. > > If you want to help Lisp thrive and become what you
 whine and complain that > it is not, leave it to people competent and in
 position to do something > about it, don't destroy their chances at success by

I'm asking why nobody is selling a Lisp that is well known
(to non-Lisp people), and which can equal C++ at writing apps.
Apart from a few exceptions, like HotMetal Pro, it's damn hard
to find any popular, examples of apps written in Lisp. I.e. an
app for a domain with a lot of media attention, and/or a product
that has been reviewed in mainsteam computer magazines.

I'm _not_ saying that Lisp is crap. What I'm saying is that
it has a hard time competing with languages like C++. C++
specifically is a touch rival, as it's the one that the
"establishment" (MS, AT&T, etc) support and promote.

Java has shown that a language with many of the features
of Lisp can become popular enough to rival C++ in terms of
media attention. We can expect Java to be around for at
least a few more years. Many of the arguments used by the
people that I remember attacking Lisp, until last year,
would be just as "relevant" to Java. Perhaps those people
are now attackiong Java, instead of Lisp. In spite of this,
Java is gaining stronger support.

What makes Java so different from Lisp, so that it should
be so successful? It could well be the syntax. It could
simply be the association with the Web, so it'll be
interesting to see how many people use it for non-Web
apps. I think that's another issue, tho. I'm not sure
that Smalltalk created this kind of excitement, and I
remember some people being critical of the ST syntax.
Perhaps syntax is more important to people than you think?

 poisoning their well. > > You said you were writing a Lisp to C system for
 your own use.  Embellish > it to produce that abominable C++ code your
 _environment_ wants as input > from you.  Nobody should be interested in the
 tools you use as long as the > product you deliver meets the (tacit and
 explicit) requirements that would > have been met if you had used the tools
 they think you're using.  I know > this works, because this is how I moved to
 programming in Lisp from menial > labor in C and C++. > > #\Erik

Well, I can think of one reason why, at least in some
companies, the choie of language could be critical.
Fortunately, I don't have to worry as much about other
programmers being able to maintain my code. I just need
to the time to work on my Lisp compiler, as isn't yet
capable of assisting me with the code I'm developing.

Thanks for your encouragement. If I seem unncessarily
negative, it's because I'm always asked to write things
in C++. If I had a Lisp tool that could do what I'm asked
to write, or could help be write it, then I'd be a lot
more positive. Also, I _am_ very positive about Lisp,
as I at least consider it as an option.

[Raymond Toy]

|   Having things change on the archive would make Lisp appear alive and
|   well.  As it is, it looks rather dead.

I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but I ran the SGML Repository at the
University of Oslo for nearly six years, five of which with a significant
impact in my own wallet, and I have another take on repositories going
stale, and I can sum it up in one word: abuse.  Provide something for free,
and certain classes of users (let's call them "freshmen at life in general"
and "recently graduated MBAs") will utterly fail to appreciate the nature
and needs of a free resource.  Both will "require" some level of service,
and both will feel free to steal whatever is there and re-market it.

I have come to believe that free net resources exist as long as there is
academic interest in a subject.  When the interest reaches commercially
viable levels, (1) people won't put commercially viable things there when
they could have sold it, and (2) those who run them aren't likely to
provide commercial enterprises with free marketing, anyway.

In any case, if the maintenance of a respository of any useful size is not
well-funded, it requires _very_ dedicated people.  Very dedicated people
who create something that is recognized to be universally useful will get
significantly de-motivated when they seek funding from the user community
and they get turned down.

This may not reflect the fate of the CMU Lisp Repository, but the reason a
repository goes stale may in fact be _increased_ interest, not reduced.

I'd say that it's just one metric. There are others, and some
may be of more value than others. Which ones are of greater
value may well vary, depending on how you use Lisp, and where.
For examplle, it looks to me as if Lisp is very popular in
education, amoung other places, but if you were to only look
at the sales of commercial Lisps, you might miss this segment
of the Lisp community. Similarly, if you only look at the
number of users of the Repository, you might miss some of the
commercial users.

We should also consider the Lisp users who aren't yet aware
of the Repository. Some people won't have access to the Internet,
and may be unaware of the CD-ROM distribution. I know I'm
being pedantic, but unless we know how many people _could_
be using the Reposiroty, but who choose not to, the number of
people who do use it means very little. We also need to know
why they don't use it.

[Cyber Surfer]

|   I don't doubt it - I've done it myself.  I've just not met many people
|   who've also done it.  Are you saying that because a few people discover
|   Lisp, that's enough?  I hope not.

I'm not interested in the mass market, if that answers your question.  I
think mass popularity is a liability, too, but obscurity is no guaranteed
asset, either.  Come to think of it, most of the things I like are obscure,
off-off-mainstream kinds of things.  Except coffee.

|   What I'm saying is that it has a hard time competing with languages
|   like C++.

But don't you see?  It _doesn't_.  It _can't_.  Lisp is about programmer
productivity and abstraction, C++ is about exploiting hardware.  C++ is the
assembly language of an object machine.  If your task is to program that
machine, fine, do it, but you don't _have_ to do it at the assembly level!

|   What makes Java so different from Lisp, so that it should be so
|   successful?  It could well be the syntax. ...  I'm not sure that
|   Smalltalk created this kind of excitement, and I remember some people
|   being critical of the ST syntax.  Perhaps syntax is more important to
|   people than you think?

Probably not more than _I_ think, since I don't buy the "semantics is more
important than syntax" argument, and have frequently argued against it.  As
a friend of mine said when we discussed just this the other day, all the
relevant languages are turing complete, anyway, so they differ not in
_semantics_ per se, but in pragmatics, which is closely tied to syntax and
questions of ease of expressibility.

How could the syntax of C++, Perl, Java, etc, be so important?  Well, my
take on this is that programmers don't have the needs that would warrant a
more powerful syntax.  They _have_ needs that ask for tons of menial labor,
and that's when (apparent) brevity of syntax becomes so important.  If you
wanted to think about complex issues, you would want readability of complex
ideas, and you would invent Lisp if it wasn't already there.  If you wanted
to hack and slash your way through a jungle of murky ideas and bad design
just to get some already annoying task done, you would want a syntax that
could do it fast, and you would invent Perl if it wasn't already there.

Only a few people in each generation discover Aristotle and read his works.
This is sufficient to continue his massive influence on Western thought.  I
care about the spread of the ideas in Lisp more than actual language, just
as I care about the concept of structured information more than I care
about another language with which I have spent an inordinate amount of
time: SGML, a language I dropped because its syntax is contradicting its
semantics, i.e., they communicate widely disparate ideas.  If the ideas can
penetrate the programmer community and they want what Lisp can offer, it
doesn't really matter what the language looks like, as long as it is still
possible to read and write the language with standard language functions,
which is why the list form beats any alternative hands down in my eyes.
Unfortunately, programmers still think of themselves as feeders of machines
and not machines as their _partners_ in their job.

Thomas, while I think your description of the problem is correct, I
have a few remarks.

1) MCL is a Common Lisp that is/has:
   - Threads
   - A price comarable to PC C++ environments
   - A useable runtime licence policy (pay once, ship as many as you
     want). I agree 100% that most other schemes are just inacceptable
     and that just free runtime licenses would be important to make
     a new language beeing accepted when comared to C++, Java etc.

The drawback is, of course, that it forces you to use/buy a Mac, which
is not the preferred Web server platform for most people. But maybe
the problem of getting some complicated application to run outwights
this.

2) There are a number of free Lisp implementations of a quality
comarable at least to perl.

3) perl has more disadvantages than just beeing unusable (for me) for
   sources with more than 100 lines.
   - No real debugger
   - No GUI-based environment of the quality like commercial CL
     implementations have.
   - Only one implementation. Trigger a bug and you'll be in
     problems. In CL, you'll have to change you FFI routines, but the
     complex program part will remain unchanged.
   - Cannot be compiled. For me and my customers, this is a
     requirement for many projects. We need to be able to move a
     project to Servers not under our control and the source should
     not be accessable there.

3) Isn't the FFI of perl very complicated and poorly documented, at
least compared to that of most Lisp systems? Or do you mean you don't
need an FFI in perl, since it has most Unix stuff build in (would be
reasonable)?

4) Is there a cheap Smalltalk system? It is some time since I looked
into Smalltalk prices, but they were at least 3 times as high as
Borland/Visual C++. Really, let me know.

5) I don't think there actually is a book on perl for Web usage that
   covers more than the basics and a few gimmics. You are right that
   there is no Lisp book that covers what you describe here, but I
   don't think the availiable perl books are right to become a real
   hacker for dynamic, advanced Web applications.

6) There is at least one Scheme implementation specialized in beeing
   used in a Web environment. I forgot the name (SIOD?), but if I
   remember right, it covers most of what you want. It is probably slow,
   but it will include a tutorial and exaples, I assume. Combined with
   some Scheme-specific gimmics, that might look good.

7) Other things to look at: CL-httpd and scsh. Cl-httpd implements
   some nice ideas a Web-programmer should be interested in, whatever
   language he/she uses.

So, what do *I* use for my Web work? I use C, just for performance and
beeing portable across systems and implementations. What I miss most
is some OOP support and threads. Java provides these, beeing at least
portable where the JDK is availiable. Currently, I'm taking a deep
look into Java.

BUT,

my current language choice is influenced by some circumstances that
may change:
- Currently, my applications are not very complex.
- Currently, it is more important to be fast and reliable that to be
  complex.
- I have no real competitor for the application area I'm currently in,
  at least none that can take more project and will try to take them
  over from me.

Currently, the customers for Web applications mostly try to "be in the
game", they need reliable, working projects that show their presence
in the market. Beeing more useful than desktop applications is mostly
not an issue. It it was, it couldn't be implemented now, because the
Web hype lead all people beeing capable of writing Web applications to
implement trivial things.

I expect the situation to change. Somewhere in the future, I will face
competitors who will provide application usefulness that I can't
provide with my current tools.

Then, the complexity of applications on the Web will be what desktop
applications are today, but with some differences, when it comes to
tools coice:

- I can choose whatever platform I want for my server and therefore as
  platform for the programs I write.
- Since the Java hype, people are much more likely to accept a
  developer's language choice. Ever today, I see a lot of applications
  coming up developend in Modula-3, Scheme, python etc. in areas where
  everything else than C (not even C++) would have had a chance
  before.
- Much of the machine load is on machines I'll have to provide. When I
  use a solution that takes up more resources, I can choose whether to
  buy a bigger machines or reimplement whatever is the problem. I will
  no longer have to program for the usual client machine.

What will I do when I have to write the most flexible solution for a
given problem?
- I'll seriously think over buying a Macintosh just to run MCL and
  another one to put outside my firewall. Well, even more I hope that
  MCL will be ported to some other platform or that a comparable Lisp
  for some other platform I like more shows up.
- I'll see whether some Scheme implementation is mature and offers the
  Web features I want. There's a good chance, couting the FSF Guile
  effort, Utexas' Rscheme and Olin Shivers work on scsh. That migh
  include to work such feature for an implementation I happen to
  like.
- I will certainly see what Harlequin's Dylanworks provides.
- Java is not bad, really. Especially, it might be the right choice if
  I will not longer be an individual that buys some amoung of
  additional programmer's time. I find it quite easy to look over Java
  modules to see whether to trust them. C is out of question when it
  comes to review other's code, and for Lisp I might find not enough
  people.
- I will - maybe - use some distributed OOP system like Xerox Parc's
  ILU and choose language on a per-module basis, not
  per-project. Then, I use Lisp for whatever module it needs it and
  let others use it from other languages.

I think choosing a language for Web projects in an environment with
competition will not depend on the positive sides of each language,
but on the negative sides.

A quote of Thomas article follows. No more comments from me below.

In article <4nzq2a9zzp....@rtp.ericsson.se>, Raymond Toy

I don't know the exact situation but it could be that
some support from people would be needed. Contribution
is always welcome.

The state of Lisp is really much better than the perceiption
by some people.