Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Spiros Bousbouras
fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
Peter Hildebrandt
wrote:
I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article
about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing to
think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are we
speaking about?
(1) The general public (use by hobby programmers, for scripting,
mentioning in blogs, boards, magazines)
(2) Start ups (people use lisp to start a business)
(3) Major corporations (companies using lisp for production software
products, eg. ITA)
(1-2) are of interest, major corporations tend let smaller players figure
out new technology before they adopt them. (2) generally follows from
(1): People use experience gained in hobby and OSS programming to found
their business. So we look at (1) in more detail:
I believe the barrier to entry is too high here, and I think the major
reason is that the lisp world is so pluralistic: Which implementation do
I use? Which IDE? Which libraries? Where do I get what?
(Unfortunately) people expect there to be one way to do things, i.e. they
expect to go to lisp.org, "click here to download", double-click the
installer, select "example-1" and first launch, click "run", and look at
their first own weblog :-)
As a newcomer (I remember!) lisp is quite confusing: which implementation
to use? Where to download? Where is a good discussion board? What are
the libraries? (Obviously I figured it out, but it took me two weeks or
so. I was set up with Java/Eclipse in 15 minutes). I hear you guys cry
out: "But there is implementation X that does A and implementation Y that
does B and C. Choice is what is great about lisp!". I know. Now go and
reread this paragraph.
In conclusion, I believe that the lisp boom won't come before there is a
canonic open source implementation and a canonic repository for
libraries. I believe all the material is there: SBCL would make a great
basis, Eclipse/Cusp a newbie-friendly IDE (which already comes with a few
libs), we have a number of great libraries, and the wholes (currently I
see Ajax/web app and GUI) will hopefully be filled soon.
Now the question is, of course, whether this is what we want. After
reading c.l.l for a year, I'd say: no. There won't be sufficient
community support for a "one corrent solution" approach, so lisp will stay
pluralistic and confusing. On the other had, those who make it through
the first two months or so are rewarded with a great system. And, I
think, among those that have the endurance, a lisp boom has already
begun. But it won't be the ruby-on-rails kind of boom.
Peter
[1] http://groovy.codehaus.org/
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Rainer Joswig
<163e1d2b-f338-45ab...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we will see a Lisp 'boom'. But I think
the slow, but steady growth will continue in the
next years. Plus, some people might be bored with their
current programming tools (it is a fashion industry) and will
look for new ways to do the same as before and write
about it. I hope we won't see too many of those...
Rainer Joswig
"Peter Hildebrandt" <peter.hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> In conclusion, I believe that the lisp boom won't come before there is a
> canonic open source implementation and a canonic repository for
> libraries. I believe all the material is there: SBCL would make a great
> basis, Eclipse/Cusp a newbie-friendly IDE (which already comes with a few
> libs), we have a number of great libraries, and the wholes (currently I
> see Ajax/web app and GUI) will hopefully be filled soon.
>
> Now the question is, of course, whether this is what we want. After
> reading c.l.l for a year, I'd say: no. There won't be sufficient
> community support for a "one corrent solution" approach, so lisp will stay
> pluralistic and confusing. On the other had, those who make it through
> the first two months or so are rewarded with a great system. And, I
> think, among those that have the endurance, a lisp boom has already
> begun. But it won't be the ruby-on-rails kind of boom.
I have already seen one Lisp boom (80s) - mostly fueled by US
military spending. Personally I'd like to see a more civilian approach
which is also sustainable over a longer period of time.
That first Lisp boom ended abruptly and left a huge crater.
I'm also pro-choice and for competition - I don't like
a monoculture. ;-)
>
> Peter
>
> [1] http://groovy.codehaus.org/
Ken Tilton
Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:34:44 +0200, Spiros Bousbouras
> <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
>
> I thought about the same question a few days ago when I read an article
> about groovy [1], which adds a few lispy features to java. The thing
> to think about is, of course, what do we mean by "Lisp boom"? Who are
> we speaking about?
And define "close". :)
Also, can we count Java (gc at least, and anonymous classes
(pwuahahaha)) and Python (interactive and crappy GC at least) and Ruby
(dynamic and blocks at least) and Groovy as being part of the Lisp boom?
Because in the end it is the ideas that matter (and have already
boomed), the rest will follow.
What I see happening is India or China discovering CL specifically and
standardizing on it (er, informally) and crushing the West. Man, that
would be funny, but not surprising. Demming was ignored by Detroit but
listened to by Japan, who then kicked Detroit's ass precisely with
Demming's ideas.
The good news is my passport is good for ten years now thanx to ECLM.
Meanwhile, I think OpenAIR could do for CL (and Cells) what Rails did
for Ruby. Hopefully Andy is making progress.
And watch out for my Algebra app. Early results indicate it works
surprisingly well with unhappy Algebra students, and Algebra has become
the line in the sand for math education in the US. If we get another
success story (here or with ITA) look out. If you thought Paul Graham
made a lot of noise, you haven't been clicking thru my sig.
Given OpenLaszlo, FlapJax, Trellis, and Adobe Adam all doing Cells
without Lisp, to me the fun question is who will win first, Cells or Lisp.
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Zach Beane
It seems like there are more meetings lately. I've been trying to keep
track with a Google calendar here:
Just in May there are ten Lisp-oriented meetings or events. That's
pretty cool.
Zach
vanekl
IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
comm, stream, unicode, thread.
Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
scholz...@gmail.com
Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
definietly not.
Ken Tilton
vanekl wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>
>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>
>
> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
>
> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
vanekl
>
>
> vanekl wrote:
>> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>>> If it's true that as we progress in time, successive
>>> fashionable languages resemble Lisp more and
>>> more then Lisp's turn should come at some point.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with this argument ? If yes, would
>>> you say we're close to a Lisp boom ?
>>
>>
>> IMO, not until CL goes through another standardization process,
>> not for the language this time, but for a few libraries:
>> comm, stream, unicode, thread.
>
> Yeah, the damn thing is unusable as it is.
unusable? needlessly inconvenient would be a better choice of words,
methinks. Python has its advantages; ignoring them is... never mind.
>>
>> Too bad there isn't a benevolent angel that could fund such
>> an expenditure <hint>PG</hint>.
>
> Nah, he went broke trying to do a start-up with CL, a Web store I think.
Time to put the cork back in the bottle. The bar is closed. Make sure
you tip your waitress on the way out. Thank you and drive safely.
> kt
>
globalrev
dont know if u misunderstood or not but he is referring to Paul Graham
that
started Viaweb in 1995 which was sold to Yahoo for around 50million
dollars in 1998.
Graham is now working on Arc, a Lisp-dialect.
Ken Tilton
He understood, he just could not handle having pointed out to him the
delightful irony of asking for money to help make Lisp usable from
someone who got rich USING Lisp thirteen years ago.
But what should we expect from someone who says "You've had too much to
drink, drive safely."?
:)
kenny
Majorinc Kazimir
I do not think so. Lisp is significantly harder to learn than,
say, Ruby or Lua, and it provides less advantages to average
programmer than ever.
vanekl
Gawd, next time I'll wink and add 10 smiley faces so the slower members
of the group can catch up.
philip....@gmail.com
If you'd said "beginner programmer" then I'd agree that there are
probably easier ways to learn programming than Common Lisp although
even this is partly due to the confusion over what to download rather
than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's
less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not
sufficiently interested in using more powerful programming tools then
I think it's hard to make the argument that Lisp should be dumbed down
for them. As you point out, there are other languages which excel in
this area.
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
John Thingstad
Of course my LispWorks system supports all of the above..
It does not do 'symmetric' multiprocessing if that is what you mean.
I might add that none of these things are a part of the C standard either.
That hasn't prevented C from being a popular language.
Common Lisp is just a common denominator for Lisp's. Commercial versions
like LispWorks and ACL come with large libraries in addition to ANSI
Common Lisp.
As it is - it is strong enough to write real applications today.
--------------
John Thingstad
Ken Tilton
Oh. I see. Yeah, your overall drift did elude me.
Anyway, I see elsewhere you will be in the vanguard of CL's drive to
world domination contributing to (some) Grand Unifying Lisp Web Thingy,
so send along a bit of your clothing and we'll train the hounds on you
as a "friendly".
MarkHa...@gmail.com
> ECLM rant:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
> ECLM talk:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Thankfully for Allegro and Lispworks, Kenny isn't doing their
forecasting.
Joost Diepenmaat
Agreed. I'm also not convinced that Ruby and Lua are a big step
towards closing the gap to good Common Lisp implementations -
especially in the performance area CL kicks ass, and Ruby for example
is mostly "just" a cleaned-up Perl (and Perl also kicks Ruby's ass in
performance). And I am apparently one of the few people here who think
Ruby is quite pretty and likes Perl.
Besides, *fuck* the average programmer. Average programmers should be
in middle management where they can't mess up the code base (much).
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
Ken Tilton
Hunh? This must be my second misconstrual in as many days -- I just
forecasted good things for commercial Lisps.
Corrollary: I do not think Franz went to Japan by mistake.[1]
But whatever you meant, you are right: they know better than I ever will
how well Lisp is doing. My only gauge is this NG... omigod! I have
become an optimist! They may not let me back into NYC. :(
kenny
[1] http://lemonodor.com/archives/001445.html
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
Majorinc Kazimir
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, philip....@gmail.com
says...
> than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's
> less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not
Average programmer is say, one who mostly rely on available
libraries and only occasionally implement complex algorithms on
his own. His programs might be large but they are mostly made
of simple pieces that need to be connected together without
bugs. I think abstract programming languages provide little
advantage for that kind of job; their advantages show mainly if
one has to develop and test many original and complicated
algorithms - and needs for that decrease due to growing
libraries, databases etc.
It is not fault of the programming language.
Majorinc Kazimir
> Besides, *fuck* the average programmer.
Oh my god! Average programmer is of a wrong sex, and even then
he is overweighted with fat glasses. I'd rather go back to C++!
pls....@gmail.com
> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
> definietly not.
Gimme everything. And free. And now. And without my contribution.
Does this work anywhere in your personal life?
-PM
Joost Diepenmaat
Hahaha. Anyway, I don't mind average programmers. As long as they know
what they're doing and stay the hell out of my code (unless I'm the
boss and can tell them how to get better, and fire them if they don't
- I'm not arrogant about much, but I trust my programming instincts).
John Thingstad
<jo...@zeekat.nl>:
>
> Besides, *fuck* the average programmer. Average programmers should be
> in middle management where they can't mess up the code base (much).
>
Just like 80% of the population think they drive better than average there
are very few *average* programmers out there :)
Let's call it John's buffoon law..
--------------
John Thingstad
Pertti Kellomäki
It does seem to work all right if one is using Python.
There is lots of stuff out there for which it does not really
matter whether one is using CL, Python, Ruby, or any other half-sane
language. In that situation, the language where you can just
say "import X" for stuff like regexps, HTTP, HTML etc. is going
to win. And for good reason, I might add.
--
Pertti
John Thingstad
<pertti.k...@tut.fi>:
I see thee approaches here.
Indeed if all you do is call library code, who cares how fast the language
is?
After all the library is doing all the work anyhow.
Of course there are cases where Python, Ruby etc are just to slow like
when implementing non trivial algorithms of your own. So you need a
library for everything. (Web designers like this way.)
If you don't have a library you you are left with implementing it in C or
simular. LUA works on this principle. Do the speed critical stuff in
C/C++. Do the glue code in LUA. (Computer games people like this way.)
CL is just another alternative. It allows you to customize the language to
fit the problem and COMPILE it.
Particularly handy if the problem you want to solve isn't that trivial in
the first place.
(Expert systems, CAD/CIM, Gene mapping perhaps)
No CL isn't Ruby and might not attract the same people. Personally I am
fine with that.
--------------
John Thingstad
globalrev
lol so true.
even norwegians say clever stuff sometimes ;) (swedish)
mabr...@gmail.com
Zach Beane
> Nothing in Washington, DC, as usual.
Actually, FringeDC meets on May 10th, but I forgot to add it to my
calendar.
http://www.lisperati.com/fringedc.html has more info.
Zach
pls....@gmail.com
> > Gimme everything. And free. And now. And without my contribution.
> > Does this work anywhere in your personal life?
>
> It does seem to work all right if one is using Python.
Wow, I didn't know that Python does have this kind of bad educational
attitude...
;)
-PM
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> På Sun, 04 May 2008 05:08:43 +0200, skrev <scholz...@gmail.com>:
>> Without Unicode support, Windows Ports, true Multithreading i think
>> definietly not.
>
> Of course my LispWorks system supports all of the above..
> It does not do 'symmetric' multiprocessing if that is what you mean.
> I might add that none of these things are a part of the C standard either.
> That hasn't prevented C from being a popular language.
However the libraries to do thouse things have been standardized.
> Common Lisp is just a common denomin