why Haskell hasn't replaced CL yet?

174 views
Skip to first unread message

Rainer Joswig

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
In article <B4D4F12A.5DAF%x...@xahlee.org>, Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:

> i don't have the lisp defect and can enunciate those phases with clarity.

Concepts like "MOP" (see below) are mostly general computer science
concepts. If you don't know these, you might be careful claiming that
"surely" something is better.

> i sure hope you give at least some lip service to the terms you speak. can
> you explain MOP?

"Meta Object Protocol". Read the works from Gregor Kiczales (and others).
It means the the object system in this (case CLOS) is opened up,
so that you can query, manipulate, extend, modify its behaviour.
There is a book ("The Art of the Metaobject Protocol"), which
is seen as a very important contribution to computer science
(for example by Alan Kay, whose name should be familiar to you).

The MOP for example is one of the reason why CLOS is uptodate.
Its mechanism allows to adapt to changes, whithout
the need to invent a new programming language every
other week.

> i searched the web and found http://www.nichimen.com/, but
> i couldn't find any mention of lisp.

But you could see the information about Mirai? See the graphics
created with it? Sony, Nintendo and many other companies
are using it to create graphics for their games
(Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy, Zelda, ...).
Mirai is mostly written in Common Lisp. To be more
specific, it is Allegro Common Lisp from Franz.
That you can write such a high-end 3d application in Lisp
is a sign, that it has **real** practical use - if never seen
anything comparably mindblowing written in, say, Haskell.

> C++ will probably beat every point in
> comparison of those aspects.

C++ has neither a MOP nor dynamic objects. C++ has not the
flexibility of Lisp, etc.

> i understand that you probably think that CL is the best language on earth,

I didn't say that.

CL is the best language on earth for certain purposes.
For others it is not.

> but i wish any such proponent would give a list of languages where they are
> an expert as a context of their claim.

How about you? You were making a claim in the first place.

> surely no one here would claim that
> CL is better than _literally_ _all_ languages? More to the point, what
> languages you think are better or has the potential to be better than CL?

For certain applications you might look at Haskell, Dylan,
Smalltalk, C++, Objective C, Prolog, ...

Or not.

> ends up worse than the (possibly) legacy ridden CL?

"Legacy ridden" means that I can run fifteen year old software
in Common Lisp without changes, if you reformulate it positively.
Common Lisp is not your language if you want to
be forced to rewrite your software every other
year. Still a lot of software written in Lisp is on the leading
edge of (programming language) research.

> i was hoping someone with severe lisp paroxysm such as Doctor Naggum to
> irradiate my nescience, but i'm willing to learn from other paladins of
> lambda legacy and diehards.

What is the purpose of your question? From your sentences I read
that your are not really knowing what you are talking about
(in this case, sorry) and that you are trying to compare apples with oranges
and that you are making bold claims without knowing Common Lisp
or its uses.

In your case, why not formulate the question more neutral and
ask what the current uses of Common Lisp are and why
it is being used? And then make up your mind for yourself?

Rainer Joswig, ISION Internet AG, Harburger Schlossstrasse 1,
21079 Hamburg, Germany, Tel: +49 40 77175 226
Email: rainer...@ision.de , WWW: http://www.ision.de/

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
* Xah wrote:
> this message is for doctor Naggum.

Why didn't you mail it to him then, rather than starting yet another
futile meta-thread on c.l.l? He doesn't conceal his address.

> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?

> i mean, surely they are both superior than CL.

Of course they are. In fact, I strongly encourage you to go away and
program in these superior languages and allow us poor losers to carry
on using our 50s language in our sad little world in peace. We only
get all upset when people point out what idiots we all are.

Actually I hear rumours that Java is far superior to any of these
so-called `high-level' languages, should you consider that instead?

--tim

Michael Dingler

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Christopher C Stacy wrote:
>
> It seems pointless to debate a vague claim that something is "better".

Butt ze Haskell lenkwedge iz pure, zerefore it musst be better,
Herr Stacy...

Well, sorry, just trying to avoid approaching Godwins law _that_
directly. I leave the task to anyone replying to this message.

To get a little bit more on-topic, why is it that a pure language
is often considered superior? Java is more pure than C++, therefore
it encourages pure OOP, which of course is better than OOP and
procedural programming mixed together, yadda yadda.

Or to approach this from a different angle: Did anything pure
ever succeed? Windows and UNIX certainly aren't. C? You're
joking, aren't you? And our favourite marvelous toy Lisp
doesn't purity, either.

Complexity seems to win most of the time. Or we all would
be bacterias.

...Michael...

David J. Cooper

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Xah wrote:
>
> this message is for doctor Naggum.
>

Then why don't you email him directly, instead of trying to
incite some kind of useless flame war on the newsgroup for
your personal amusement?

By the way your sarcastic condenscending tone in calling him
``doctor'' comes through as exactly that. If you had any
true respect for him at all you would realize that Mr.
Naggum has far more important and pressing matters to
attend to than to humor your incipid posts, and he has
answered your ``questions'' many times over in the past
several years, if you would have the common decency to
spend a few hours looking through news archives and doing
a bit of thinking for yourself before posting such vague
and inflammatory swill.

-dave

--
David J. Cooper Jr, Chief Engineer Genworks International
dco...@genworks.com 5777 West Maple, Suite 130
(248) 932-2512 (Genworks HQ/voicemail) West Bloomfield, MI 48322-2268
(248) 407-0633 (pager) http://www.genworks.com

Xah

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
rainer,

don't drivel all over the place. try to read my previous two posts with
care. i'm a person of methodology and meticulousness. when you write, try to
make a diamond a word. don't ruin a fine troll with banal noise.

as to Haskell/Dylan vs CL, i do like to know the opinions on them from CL
devotee. i have already learned your opinion partially. i welcome more.

i wrote


> but i wish any such proponent would give a list of languages where they are
> an expert as a context of their claim.

rainer wrote


> How about you? You were making a claim in the first place.

sure, i'd be happy to give my opinions on languages if you or other insist.
i don't think anyone here is that interested. i'm not a master of many
languages. btw, i did not claim that Haskell or Dylan is superior to CL.
read with perceptiveness.

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


Xah

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
> ... In fact, I strongly encourage you to go away and

> program in these superior languages and allow us poor losers to carry
> on using our 50s language in our sad little world in peace. We only
> get all upset when people point out what idiots we all are.

why so hash on a virgin lamb? i was only asking a question.

have you considered upgrading your brain to use the new emotion chip?
the new chip has better humor sensory. you can also activate the
laugh-to-death switch.

>Actually I hear rumours that Java is far superior to any of these
>so-called `high-level' languages, should you consider that instead?

why don't you java yourself?

now if you still have opinions on Haskell or Dylan, i'd be happy to hear it.
(i'm supposing you do have a sizable expertise in CL?)

c'mon. if you are compassionate about the quality of this newsgroup as you
appears to be, refrain from riposte and hit me with real content. your
actions speak better than your words.

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


Xah

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
i wrote:
> this message is for doctor Naggum.

"David J. Cooper" <dco...@genworks.com> wrote


> Then why don't you email him directly, instead of trying to
> incite some kind of useless flame war on the newsgroup for
> your personal amusement?

Then why don't YOU email me directly, instead of trying to
incite a barb from me publicly?

> By the way your sarcastic condenscending tone in calling him
> ``doctor'' comes through as exactly that.

Yeah? what do you _know_ about me & Erik?

> If you had any
> true respect for him at all you would realize that Mr.
> Naggum has far more important and pressing matters to
> attend to

which includes posting prodigious off-topic condescending vagaries on this
newsgroup. agree?

> than to humor your incipid posts, and he has
> answered your ``questions'' many times over in the past
> several years, if you would have the common decency to
> spend a few hours looking through news archives and doing
> a bit of thinking for yourself before posting such vague
> and inflammatory swill.

_inSipid_ and swill? thank you, i've just re-learned the word swill. It is
in this precise manner than sometimes way off topic flame wars can benefits
all avid participants. care to flame back? By the way, as i've said in other
replies, i'm still interested in CL devotee's opinion on Haskell or Dylan.
maybe the ambience has already been spoiled. whether this came up before, or
will turn into a gigabyte rubbish flame war, is really not my
responsibility. thanks to, in part, righteous persons like you who tried to
meta-moderate in public with egoistic sincerity.

i could search newsgroup archives to formulate Erik's opinion on
Haskell/Dylan, but i'm not obliged to. in fact, in the past 2 years whenever
i had time reading c.l.l. i just search for Naggum's posts (and other
old-timers) but alas it became very tiring to scrutinize for real content in
his outrageous writings.

btw, it is thanks to Erik Naggum's daringly-public opinions, that i've
picked up the habit at least in informal writings to use all lowercase. have
YOU read his reasons for doing this? take your own advise and search
dejanews.com !

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


David Bakhash

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
this guy is clearly out to get Lisp people to flame him, and he's
probably laughing his ass off.

Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes:

> i was hoping someone with severe lisp paroxysm such as Doctor Naggum to
> irradiate my nescience, but i'm willing to learn from other paladins of
> lambda legacy and diehards.

He probably spent a good hour on this paragraph, hitting his thesaurus
half a dozen times.

I'd say to let this loser go. He probably can't write code to save
his pathetic existence, and now he's somehow trying to attack a
language which he doesn't have a clue about.

I'd say, send this guy back to the C world, where he belongs. He'll
most likely never do anything worthwhile in the Lisp community, and
probably not in the software community either. But he'll fit in a lot
better elsewhere.


Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to

David Bakhash wrote:
[...]

> I'd say to let this loser go. He probably can't write code to save
> his pathetic existence, and now he's somehow trying to attack a
> language which he doesn't have a clue about.
>
> I'd say, send this guy back to the C world, where he belongs. He'll
> most likely never do anything worthwhile in the Lisp community, and
> probably not in the software community either. But he'll fit in a lot
> better elsewhere.

Well said, David! He deserves a kick in the ass as the only sensible
answer (or whatever it takes to stop him polluting c.l.l.).

Robert

Marc Battyani

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:cxjputr...@engc.bu.edu...

> this guy is clearly out to get Lisp people to flame him, and he's
> probably laughing his ass off.
>
> Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes:
>
> > i was hoping someone with severe lisp paroxysm such as Doctor Naggum to
> > irradiate my nescience, but i'm willing to learn from other paladins of
> > lambda legacy and diehards.
>
> He probably spent a good hour on this paragraph, hitting his thesaurus
> half a dozen times.

Here is a quote from his web site : "I believe that I may have a schizoid
personality disorder". No kidding!

> I'd say to let this loser go. He probably can't write code to save
> his pathetic existence, and now he's somehow trying to attack a
> language which he doesn't have a clue about.
>
> I'd say, send this guy back to the C world, where he belongs. He'll
> most likely never do anything worthwhile in the Lisp community, and
> probably not in the software community either. But he'll fit in a lot
> better elsewhere.

It's even worse, the poor guy is doing perl for a living. No wander why he
look at lisp people with such jealousy.
Here is another quote from his site : "Although I hate Perl, but Perl
programing is what I do for a living now"
In fact he also doesn't like Unix, windows and a lot of things.
Some last quotes just for the fun: "Is it possible to obtain absolute
control of one's mind? ... I wanted to train myself to have such
capability... The world is meaningless... unix is the motherhood of
everything sucks... Unix has this knack at brainwashing programers.
Monstrous moronity are perceived as the norm"

OK quoting don't render the whole thing so you can look at the remaining
delirium at : http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/Personal_dir/xah.html

Cheers,

Marc Battyani


Stig Hemmer

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes on Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800:

> i mean, surely they are both superior than CL.
[with "they" refering to Haskell and Dylan]

Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes on Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:20:17 -0800:


> btw, i did not claim that Haskell or Dylan is superior to CL.

You really need to improve your memory.

Stig Hemmer,
Jack of a Few Trades.


Fernando

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:57:01 -0800, Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:


>> By the way your sarcastic condenscending tone in calling him
>> ``doctor'' comes through as exactly that.
>
>Yeah? what do you _know_ about me & Erik?

Just one thing: you're now both in my kill file.

Get lost, will you?


//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------

Fernando

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
On 20 Feb 2000 11:47:57 -0500, David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:


>I'd say, send this guy back to the C world, where he belongs.

Nope. Take a look at his site: he's a Perl programmer (no pun
intended, of course). };-)

Fernando

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800, Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:

>this message is for doctor Naggum.
>

>why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?

Sorry, but the doctor is right now busy flamming another
patient (Mr. Posey), so please come back later. Thank you. ;-)

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to

Fernando <spa...@must.die> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
g4a0bs00ufploafs4...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800, Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
>
> >this message is for doctor Naggum.
> >
> >why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?
>
> Sorry, but the doctor is right now busy flamming another
> patient (Mr. Posey), so please come back later. Thank you. ;-)


He must be a very good doctor if he has that many patients! And his fees are
moderate too... :)

Janos Blazi
>
>
>
>
> file://-----------------------------------------------


> // Fernando Rodriguez Romero
> //
> // frr at mindless dot com

> file://------------------------------------------------


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
* Xah wrote:

> now if you still have opinions on Haskell or Dylan, i'd be happy to hear it.

But surely, you were only after answers from Erik?

If instead you're after general opinions, I suggest you look in Deja
or somewhere and you'll find that these kind of discussions on c.l.l
(and I assume other groups) typically generate a whole bunch of bad
feeling and *no useful result at all*. If you want to have a useful
discussion it is a really good idea to start it with some useful input
rather than `i mean, surely they are both superior than CL'. Try
asking about some *technical issues*: `Dylan has sealing, could it be
added to CL and would this be a winning thing to do?' or something.

> (i'm supposing you do have a sizable expertise in CL?)

Yes, I know something about CL.

--tim

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to

Exactly! Puns with this level of intellectual investment and
sophistication are indeed rare here - can you write down diamond?

Robert

Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>
> OK,
>
> I can see that this guy is a troll, but credit where credit is due.
> He's a funny troll who writes with a clever turn of phrase. For
> instance, the following was a masterly pun:
>
> >> Can you say multiple platforms (Windows, diverse Unix, Mac,
> >> + several obscure machines, ...).


>
> >i don't have the lisp defect and can enunciate those phases with clarity.
>

> I'm afraid you were taken, Rainer. :-)

Coby Beck

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
I think this groups sees enough pointless bickering without some airheaded
and totally transparent attempt to "swat the hornet's nest"

I would be quite surprised if Erik takes your bait.

Coby
Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message news:B4D4AB19.5A99%x...@xahlee.org...


> this message is for doctor Naggum.
>
> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?
>

> i mean, surely they are both superior than CL. is that because the
advanced
> theory of economy that superior products will never be as popular as
> inferior products? how does this theory apply to Haskell/Dylan/CL? due to
my
> limited knowledge, i can not fathom but guess that it's because CL has the
> power of massive legacy. as can be seen in C or unix, that prowess of
legacy
> is not to be ignored. however, the key question to me is whether CL has
> technical clout over Haskell or Dylan. could you please exercise your
expert
> opinion?
>
> thanks.
>
> ps none comp.lang.lisp dweller needs not reply.
>
> Xah
> x...@xahlee.org
> http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
>

Christopher Browne

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Coby Beck would say:

>Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message news:B4D4AB19.5A99%x...@xahlee.org...
>> this message is for doctor Naggum.
>>
>> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?
>
>I think this groups sees enough pointless bickering without some
>airheaded and totally transparent attempt to "swat the hornet's
>nest"
>
>I would be quite surprised if Erik takes your bait.

#erik would be pretty stupid to do so; the .signature below is a
useful retort.

Dylan has the merit of having some of the same designers behind it
that were behind CL, and in having the clean slate that CL didn't
have. Unfortunately, that lack of "legacy" means that there was no
code to port to it.

And I'm surprised that Haskell is being promoted; the "truly, and
almost purely, functional" language that has actually grown to have
multiple implementations and to have potent development tools seems
instead to be ML. OCAML does look rather interesting, and there are
actually some *somewhat* meaningful applications written in it.

But arguing over it leads to "dung fights," and the given is that in
such battles, everyone involves winds up smelling really bad.
--
"Bawden is misinformed. Common Lisp has no philosophy. We are held
together only by a shared disgust for all the alternatives."
-- Scott Fahlman, explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is....
cbbr...@hex.net - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

Raymond Wiker

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
Stig Hemmer <st...@gnoll.pvv.ntnu.no> writes:

> Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes on Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800:


> > i mean, surely they are both superior than CL.

> [with "they" refering to Haskell and Dylan]
>
> Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes on Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:20:17 -0800:
> > btw, i did not claim that Haskell or Dylan is superior to CL.
>
> You really need to improve your memory.

He also needs to concentrate _less_ on using [cruel and] unusual
words, and _more_ on forming complete, parseable and unambiguous
sentences.

BTW: On his web site, he claims to be an expert Mathematica
programmer. Mathematica is just an application[1], so isn't this like
claiming to be a Microsoft Word Wizard?

Footnotes:
[1] Yeah, I know...

--
Raymond Wiker, Orion Systems AS
+47 370 61150

Raymond Wiker

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
"Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> writes:

> Fernando <spa...@must.die> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> g4a0bs00ufploafs4...@4ax.com...

> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800, Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
> >
> > >this message is for doctor Naggum.
> > >
> > >why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?
> >

> > Sorry, but the doctor is right now busy flamming another
> > patient (Mr. Posey), so please come back later. Thank you. ;-)
>
>
> He must be a very good doctor if he has that many patients! And his fees are
> moderate too... :)

Bzzzt... wrong... Doctor Naggum has *very little* patience.

Christian Lynbech

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
>>>>> "Janos" == Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> writes:

>> Can you say libraries?

Janos> What do you mean by that? Are there standard libraries for CL?
Janos> (Actually one of the shortcomings of CL in my eyes is the lack
Janos> of such libraries (like C has for example and even Python). I
Janos> think the the c.l.l community could create such libraries in 6
Janos> months... sigh.

Some of the reason for that is that CL needs much less libraries
because it contains so much more than for instance C or Scheme.

Compare the weight of CLtL with R?RS for reference.


---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit A/S
Fax: +45 8628 8186 | Fabrikvej 11, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8738 2228 | email: c...@tbit.dk --- URL: http://www.tbit.dk
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- pet...@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)

Marco Antoniotti

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to

Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes:

> this message is for doctor Naggum.
>
> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?

Wrong syntax.

For Haskell there is also the problem of requiring quite a bit of
mathematical terminology and of being more "rigid" than CL or Dylan.

> i mean, surely they are both superior than CL. is that because the advanced
> theory of economy that superior products will never be as popular as
> inferior products? how does this theory apply to Haskell/Dylan/CL? due to my
> limited knowledge, i can not fathom but guess that it's because CL has the
> power of massive legacy. as can be seen in C or unix, that prowess of legacy
> is not to be ignored. however, the key question to me is whether CL has
> technical clout over Haskell or Dylan. could you please exercise your expert
> opinion?

I am not claiming to be an expert. :)

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

Espen Vestre

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes:

> you explain MOP? i searched the web and found http://www.nichimen.com/, but


> i couldn't find any mention of lisp.

Please learn to use a web search engine and come back here when you're done.

I don't know why Nichimen Graphics are relatively quiet about their lisp
usage (I say relatively because you can find the word lisp both on their
job advertisement page and in their FAQ, and they are also mentioned on
http://www.franz.com), but I can see two reasons for not spreading the
word when you're using lisp: First, thousands of ignorants of your kind are
spreading wrong information on lisp, which makes 'we use lisp' not a
particulary good marketing slogan. Second, some users of lisp consider
it to be such a competitive advantage that they want to keep that secret
for themselves.
--
(espen)

Pierre R. Mai

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
Christian Lynbech <c...@tbit.dk> writes:

> Janos> What do you mean by that? Are there standard libraries for CL?
> Janos> (Actually one of the shortcomings of CL in my eyes is the lack
> Janos> of such libraries (like C has for example and even Python). I
> Janos> think the the c.l.l community could create such libraries in 6
> Janos> months... sigh.
>
> Some of the reason for that is that CL needs much less libraries
> because it contains so much more than for instance C or Scheme.
>
> Compare the weight of CLtL with R?RS for reference.

There is also less willingness to produce the sort of throw-away
libraries that are common in other languages, for areas where the
issues involved in providing a decent, _stable_ interface have not
been understood yet by the implementors.

Whether this is good (i.e. mostly only high-quality, stable libraries
available for CL), or bad (cf. the worse is better argument by
Gabriel) is IMHO not clear. I certainly can see the reasoning that CL
could use some dirty but useable libraries for quick&dirty things
(like much WWW work) which can then evolve into real CL libraries.
Without this kind of unhindered public experimentation, starvation
might occur.

OTOH I see the problems which are caused by the Perl phenomenon (a
host of small, often unstable, quickly obsoleted libraries), too, and
I'm happy to produce software whose life-time will exceed that of the
package de-jour which will be obsolete by next year.

To put it another way: It's nice to be able to quickly produce
something useful with little effort using libraries. It's even nicer
to produce something very useful with reduced effort using libraries.
It's much nicer still if this work will be maintainable with reduced
(instead of increased) effort because of stably co-evolving libraries.

Anyway, it seems that some movement has come into the open CL library
market, so let's see how we might try to get the best of both worlds.

Turning to Alan Perlis' quip, we might say that Common Lisp programmers
know the cost of many things, as well as their values. ;)

Regs, Pierre.

--
Pierre Mai <pm...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]

Paolo Amoroso

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
:)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800, Xah <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:

> this message is for doctor Naggum.

Dr. Naggum is busy visiting his patients. May I help you?


> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?

Dr. Naggum has been my physician for years. Since I am just a patient, I am
clueless: I don't know whether Common Lispirin is a better drug than
Dylanzac or Haskell 100 Retard. But Dr. Naggum says that it is a very good
remedy against C++rrhosis and Perlitonitis, the occupational diseases of
programmers.


Paolo

:)
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/

Paolo Amoroso

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:51:08 +0100, "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de>
wrote:

> has for example and even Python). I think the the c.l.l community could
> create such libraries in 6 months... sigh.

That's exactly what the community is doing. Check:

CLOCC - Common Lisp Open Code Collection
http://clocc.sourceforge.net/

Lambda Codex
https://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=2041


Paolo

Scott E. Fahlman

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to

Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes:

> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?

On the remote chance that you really are looking for information
instead of (or in addition to) just trying to stir up a fight with
Erik Naggum...

CL and Dylan are in slightly different parts of the design space. CL
offers great runtime flexibility, but at the cost of carrying around
substantial parts of its program development environment at runtime --
rather like a tortoise carrying its house around. "Delivery modes"
that produce compact CL applications arrived late in the game and are
only a partial solution.

Dylan started out close to CL in its goals, but with a greater
emphasis on runtime efficiency and separation of the programming
environment from the runtime support. For this, the designers gave up
some runtime flexibility and some faciliities for introspection. They
also took the opportunity to clean up the design and jettison about
20 years of accumulated barnacles.

(The Dylan syntax was also modified in an attempt to appeal more to
"mainstream" programmers raised on infix languages such as C. Given
Dylan's goals, that was probably a good idea, but in my personal view
the attempt was botched, making it very hard to produce a macro system
with the power and elegance that we see in various Lisp dialects.)

Unfortunately, Dylan was strangled in the crib by its parents. During
Apple's near-death experience, they first strung out Dylan development
and then killed the whole lab that was supporting it. Harlequin's
effort got farther, but suffered a similar fate. My group at CMU
reluctantly moved to Java, and were later blown away by DARPA
insanity.

A few refugees still carry the Dylan torch, and I wish them well. But
a great deal of ground has now been lost to Java, Perl, and C++, and
some projects have reverted to CL. So we may never know how well
Dylan might have succeeded on its own merits.

I have less first-hand experience with Haskell, but its strong and
deep commitment to a mostly-pure functional style puts it in a very
different part of the design space from these other languages.
Haskell may have its own niche, but it is not a direct competitor to
CL or Dylan. Neither, by the way, are the various flavors of ML,
which place type-safety above all other virtues.

Probably the real answer to your question is that Haskell and Dylan
have not displaced CL because Java beat them to it. I believe that CL
will survive (until some worthy successor comes along) because it is
still by far the best language for building really complex systems in
an incremental, evolutionary style. Some large "AI style" projects
can't live without it. But in many gray areas where Java is
sufficient (not better -- just sufficient), Java has won.

-- Scott

===========================================================================
Scott E. Fahlman Internet: s...@cs.cmu.edu
Principal Research Scientist Phone: 412 268-2575
Department of Computer Science Fax: 412 268-5576
Carnegie Mellon University Latitude: 40:26:46 N
5000 Forbes Avenue Longitude: 79:56:55 W
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Mood: :-)
===========================================================================

William Deakin

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
Fernando wrote:

> >I'd say, send this guy back to the C world, where he belongs.
>

> ... he's a Perl programmer (no pun intended, of course).

Just a blantant oxymoron ;)

Cheers,

:) will

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
An additional question:
How would you judge the chances or merits of Python? Will it survive?

janos Blazi

Scott E. Fahlman <s...@cs.cmu.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
ydn1ou7...@myrddin.gwydion.cs.cmu.edu...

David J. Cooper

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
"Scott E. Fahlman" wrote:
>
> (The Dylan syntax was also modified in an attempt to appeal more to
> "mainstream" programmers raised on infix languages such as C.
>

Lately I have been wondering about this. Why is C considered an
"infix" language? Only a small subset of its operators are used
in an infix syntax, mostly simple arithmetic operators like "+"
and "-". Normal function calls are done using prefix notation
just like CL, are they not? The parentheses are just in a
slightly different position.

So languages like C are not really "infix" at all -- they are
a confused mixture of infix, prefix, and other really strange
stuff like var++ (what's that??)

The bottom line is that CL has a consistent syntax while
languages like C or Java do not. End of story.


-dave


--
David J. Cooper Jr, Chief Engineer Genworks International
dco...@genworks.com 5777 West Maple, Suite 130
(248) 932-2512 (Genworks HQ/voicemail) West Bloomfield, MI 48322-2268
(248) 407-0633 (pager) http://www.genworks.com

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to

"David J. Cooper" wrote:

> [...] really strange


> stuff like var++ (what's that??)

Postfix.

Hartmann Schaffer

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
In article <CzOxOBcu4FxVfRy8=W26DF...@4ax.com>,
Paolo Amoroso <amo...@mclink.it> writes:
> ...
> Lambda Codex
> https://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=2041

page not found

--

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days

Kimmo T Takkunen

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
In article <38b17...@goliath.newsfeeds.com>, Janos Blazi wrote:
>An additional question:
>How would you judge the chances or merits of Python? Will it survive?
>
>janos Blazi

See:
<http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html>
Python for Lisp Programmers

Summary:"Python seems to be well-suited for many of the tasks that Lisp
is well-suited for, except those that require high performance."

-- Kimmo
((lambda (integer)
(coerce (loop for i upfrom 0 by 8 below (integer-length integer)
collect (code-char (ldb (byte 8 i) integer))) 'string))
100291759904362517251920937783274743691485481194069255743433035)

Arthur Lemmens

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to

"Scott E. Fahlman" wrote:

> I believe that CL will survive (until some worthy successor comes along)
> because it is still by far the best language for building really complex
> systems in an incremental, evolutionary style.

Yes, that's one of CL's niches.
But it's not the only one.

I earn my living writing rather simple programs. Almost all my programs are
less than 15,000 lines (and half of that is typically recycled library code).
Most of my projects take somewhere between 2 weeks and 2 months of my time.

So: nothing 'really complex' or 'incremental, evolutionary' here. But for
me, switching from C/C++ to Common Lisp is the best thing I've ever done in
my career. Now that I use CL, I can suggest simple 1-month projects to my
clients that would have taken half a year (and would have been way too
expensive) before. Programming is fun again, like it used to be 15 years
ago.

The flexibility and clarity that CL offers, is not only important for
'large "AI style" projects'. It may be even more useful for small projects
where deadlines and time-to-market constraints force you to either write
simple, flexible and understandable programs or spend most of your time
chasing bugs.

Arthur Lemmens

P.S. Before I switched to Common Lisp (about two years ago), I took a serious
look at Haskell, Dylan and Java as well.
I didn't choose Haskell, because:
- there was no industrial-strength compiler with a good Windows GUI
library
- I couldn't convince myself that lazy functional programming didn't
result in memory leaks at unpredictable times
I didn't choose Dylan, because:
- it was too young and uncertain
- the promise of more runtime efficiency wasn't as important for me
as the lack of a powerful and elegant macro system
- I've never been able to swallow Dylan's switch from prefix to infix
I didn't choose Java, because:
- well, why should I? The only reason for preferring Java to Common
Lisp is that everybody else is using it.


Scott E. Fahlman

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
"Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> writes:

> An additional question:
> How would you judge the chances or merits of Python? Will it survive?

Well, I haven't used Python myself. By reputation, it's kind of an
ugly and awkward design, but has a lot of built-in functionality that
makes it easy to do certain kinds of tasks with little effort. Those
language always seem to survive in their specialized niches until
something better comes along to evict them. usually the "something
better" is not more general, but is yet another niche-dweller.

My own guess is that Python will go the way of Snobol, Forth, Prolog,
and so on -- a slow fade over time, with some fanatical adherents
still hanging on. But that's just a guess from someone far outside
the Python culture.

-- Scott


Pierre R. Mai

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> writes:

And the hodge-podge of prefix, infix and postfix that is your average
Algol-like language syntax (whether C, Pascal, Ada or what have you),
is often called misfix (from mixfix) by those who loathe it and the
complexities (for both compilers and users) that this causes... ;)

Larry Elmore

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
"Pierre R. Mai" <pm...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:87u2j25...@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de...

> Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> writes:
>
> > "David J. Cooper" wrote:
> >
> > > [...] really strange
> > > stuff like var++ (what's that??)
> >
> > Postfix.
>
> And the hodge-podge of prefix, infix and postfix that is your average
> Algol-like language syntax (whether C, Pascal, Ada or what have you),
> is often called misfix (from mixfix) by those who loathe it and the
> complexities (for both compilers and users) that this causes... ;)

Just out of curiousity, what would you call J or APL's notation?

Larry

Xah

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
s...@cs.cmu.edu (Scott E. Fahlman) wrote:
> Well, I haven't used Python myself. By reputation, it's kind of an
> ugly and awkward design, but has a lot of built-in functionality that
> makes it easy to do certain kinds of tasks with little effort. Those
> language always seem to survive in their specialized niches until
> something better comes along to evict them. usually the "something
> better" is not more general, but is yet another niche-dweller.
>
> My own guess is that Python will go the way of Snobol, Forth, Prolog,
> and so on -- a slow fade over time, with some fanatical adherents
> still hanging on. But that's just a guess from someone far outside
> the Python culture.

HhhuuH ???

--

Now after given some insight and inside info on Dylan/CL, Dr. Fahlman
proceeds to stamp out other languages by wanton speculation on the demise of
Python?

Thank you Scott for the info on Dylan and CL. It's very much appreciated by
me, and no doubt by many others here.

As to the Python speech, thanks to Xah for pointing out a crime and set
newbie bystanders straight. We do suffer from conceit at times.

Python (which i'm indifferent) has probably more users than CL, used in more
application than CL, and picking up users faster than probably all lisps
with two or more of O'Reilly publications and much mention in the Linux
crowd, and is decidedly here to live longer than CL.

For those linguists out there, there's a new language in the Perl/Python
class called Ruby from Japan. Here's it's website:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
it's similar in looks to Perl but is supposedly more pure OOP and
well-designed than even Python.

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html

Xah

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
> "David J. Cooper" wrote:
>> [...] really strange
>> stuff like var++ (what's that??)

Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> wrote
> Postfix.

shut your pie-hole if you don't know what you are talking about.

Ken Pitman wrote about this about 2 years ago, and from the message he
either implied or stated that he's been tired of clarifying this issue.
Search dejanews.com.
(Ken Pitman is one of the founder or leader in lisps.
http://world.std.com/~pitman/
)

I'll clarify your brain with my own version.

The common name for the lisp way is Fully Parenthesized Prefix Notation.
This syntax is the most straightforward to represent a tree, but it's not
the only choice. For example, one could have Fully Parenthesized Postfix
Notation by simply moving the semantics of the first element to the last.
You write
(arg1 arg2 ... f) instead of the usual (f arg1 arg2)

Like wise, you can essentially move f anywhere and still make sense. In
Mathematica, they put the f in front of the paren, and use square brackets
instead. e.g. f[a, b, c], Sin[3], Map[f, list] ...etc.
The f in front of parent makes better conventional sense until f is itself a
list which then we'll see things like f[a,b][c, g[3,h]] etc. It's worse when
there are arbitrary nesting of heads.

A _prefix notation_ in Mathematica is represented as f@arg. Essentially, a
prefix notation limits you to one argument. More example:
f@a@b@c
is equivalent to
f[a[b[c]]] or in lispy (f (a (b c))).
A postfix notation is similar. In Mathematica it's, e.g. c//b//a//f. One can
say, for example
List[1,2,3]//Sin
which is syntactically equivalent to
Sin[List[1,2,3]] or Sin@List[1,2,3]
which is semantically equivalent to
Map[Sin, List[1,2,3]]
in Mathematica. For infix notation, one puts symbols between arguments. In
Mathematica, the canonical form for infix notation is by sandwiching tilde
around the function name. e.g.
Join[List[1,2],List[3,4]]
can be written as
List[1,2] ~Join~ List[3,4].

In general, when we say C is a infix notation language, we don't mean it's
strictly infix but the situation is one-size-fits-all for convenience.
Things like i++ or ++i is more or less an arbitrary sugar syntax. (that is,
ad hoc syntax variation without any comprehensive design or theory base.)

In Mathematica for example, there is quite a lot syntax sugar besides the
above mentioned regular ones. For instance, Plus[a,b,c] can be written in
the following ways:
(a+b)+c
a+b+c
(a+b)~Plus~c
Plus@(3+4)
Plus@Plus[3,4]
Plus[3,4]//Plus

The gist being that certain functions such as Plus are assigned a special
symbol '+' with particular syntax form to emulate convention. One can also
do i++, ++i, i+=1 for instances. Another example: Times[a,b] can be written
as a*b or just a b.

In Haskell, which i'm starting to learn, there is also similar constructs
for the turning an Function (i.e. keyword) into an operator with infix
notation by regular constructs. e.g.
3 + 4
is equivalent to
(+) 3 4

anyone know Haskell better please extend.

As a side note, the Perl mongers are proud of their slogan of There Are More
Than One Way To Do It in their gazillion of ad hoc syntax sugars but unaware
that in functional languages (such as Mathematica) that there are consistent
and generalized constructs that can generate far far more syntax variations
than the ad hoc prefixed Perl both in theory AND in practice. (and in lisps,
macros does the same.) And, more importantly, they clamor about Perl's
"expressiveness" more or less on the useless syntax level but don't realize
that semantic expression is what's really important. I don't know about Lisp
really, but I know in Mathematica and i've read in Haskell that there are
constructs whose power and concept is beyond imperative programers can
apprehend.

Now back to syntax... anyone care to add?

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


Xah

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
some error in my previous post.

i wrote


> (a+b)+c
> a+b+c
> (a+b)~Plus~c
> Plus@(3+4)
> Plus@Plus[3,4]
> Plus[3,4]//Plus

should've been

(a+b)+c
a+b+c
(a+b)~Plus~c
Plus@(a+b+c)
Plus@Plus[a,b,c]
Plus[a,b,c]//Plus

i wrote:
> I don't know about Lisp
> really, but I know in Mathematica and i've read in Haskell that there are
> constructs whose power and concept is beyond imperative programers can
> apprehend.

but I do know that the same thing can be said for lisp. I meant to say that
i wasn't qualified to expound on lisp.

i wrote:
> The gist being that certain functions such as Plus are assigned a special
> symbol '+' with particular syntax form to emulate convention. One can also
> do i++, ++i, i+=1 for instances. Another example: Times[a,b] can be written
> as a*b or just a b.

btw, the canonical form or FullForm as called in Mathematica for those i++
are:

Increment[i] for i++

AddTo[i,1] for i+=1

PreIncrement[i] for ++i

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html

Michael Hudson

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
s...@cs.cmu.edu (Scott E. Fahlman) writes:

> "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> writes:
>
> > An additional question:
> > How would you judge the chances or merits of Python? Will it survive?
>

> Well, I haven't used Python myself.

Oh, come on!

> By reputation, it's kind of an
> ugly and awkward design, but has a lot of built-in functionality that
> makes it easy to do certain kinds of tasks with little effort.

Where did you read that? It's almost completely ass-backwards!

> Those language always seem to survive in their specialized niches
> until something better comes along to evict them. usually the
> "something better" is not more general, but is yet another
> niche-dweller.

Python is not (particularly) specialised. It's not as general as CL,
mind.

> My own guess is that Python will go the way of Snobol, Forth, Prolog,
> and so on -- a slow fade over time, with some fanatical adherents
> still hanging on.

You may be right. It's not fading yet, though. Maybe you were
thinking of some other language.

> But that's just a guess from someone far outside the Python culture.

What was the point of posting that piece of malinformed rubbish? I
don't intend to start a language war (I like Python, I hope it does
well so I can one day get a job programming it rather than
C++/Perl/Java if lisp jobs are lacking), but I know c.l.l gets
aggravated when people post misinformation about lisp, and we should
know better.

Regards,
Michael

--
very few people approach me in real life and insist on proving they are
drooling idiots. -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp

Jonathan Coupe

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to

Kimmo T Takkunen <ktak...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:slrn8b33t9....@sirppi.helsinki.fi...

janos Blazi
>
> See:
> <http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html>
> Python for Lisp Programmers
>
> Summary:"Python seems to be well-suited for many of the tasks that Lisp
> is well-suited for, except those that require high performance."
>

Personally I'd be much more nervous about Python's lack of true GC. The last
time I snooped the python newsgroup there was some concern over this by
people using Python for larger projects and for programs that have to be
left running for long periods. Python cooperates with C very nicely for
optimisation purposes. The *practical* difference speed difference isn't
nearly the 100 to 1 that Norvig implies, in my experience. I still strongly
prefer Lisp, however. To my surprise one of the main reasons is
readability - with a little practice Lisp is much readble than Python,
something I'd never have expected. And its definitely more "designable" - ie
capable of being used to fit whatever reasonable design I come up with.

Jonathan Coupe

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
If I may ask you: Which CL implementation are you using? Are you using only
one CL implementation?
Janos Blazi

Arthur Lemmens <lem...@simplex.nl> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
38B1BA6D...@simplex.nl...

Scott E. Fahlman

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Michael Hudson <mw...@cam.ac.uk> writes:

> What was the point of posting that piece of malinformed rubbish? I
> don't intend to start a language war (I like Python, I hope it does
> well so I can one day get a job programming it rather than
> C++/Perl/Java if lisp jobs are lacking), but I know c.l.l gets
> aggravated when people post misinformation about lisp, and we should
> know better.

Yeah, you're right. I was just trying to respond to a question, but I
shouldn't have ventured an opinion about Python without doing a lot
more research.

The uses of Python that I had looked at were in specialized niches
such as XML programming. They made use of some nice modules and
libraries that the user community had written. So Python was
classified in my head as basically a scripting language with a few
poweful facilities that give it an advantage in certain niches. Kind
of like PERL, but a bit more elegant and with better support for an OO
style.

But upon further investigation, I see that Python really is more
general than I gave it credit for. It began as a scripting langauge,
but seems to have developed into a nice little "Swiss Army Knife".

When viewed as a scripting language, Python is a lot cleaner and a lot
more general than most. In particular, it seems very useful for
adding an interpreter-like wrapper to applications written in other
langauges. It's probably unfair to refer to that as a "niche".

If viewed as a programming language for serious, large-scale,
long-lived software projects that have to produce reasonably efficient
code, it looks to me like Python has some serious drawbacks and
omissions. Some serious Python users complain about this; others
claim the language is great for large-scale projects. I have nothing
useful to add to that discussion, and this newsgroup is probably not
the right place for it. However, if someone has extensive experience
with both CL and Python for similar large-scale projects, I think a
comparison -- or just a collection of war stories -- would be welcome
here.

Personally, I like to use CL for most tasks where others would reach
for Python or Perl or some scripting language. Scripts have a nasty
way of evolving into real programs that have to be maintained,
debugged, and sometimes tuned and compiled. CL may be overkill for
smallish tasks, but it's nice not to have a discontinuity between
small and large tasks. Your mileage may vary.

-- Scott


Martin Rodgers

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Voice in the desert: Quiet, isn't it, Xah?

> anyone know Haskell better please extend.

I recommend comp.lang.functional, where they have extensive knowledge
of Haskell, Haskell compilers, and Haskell applications. They're also
very realistic about the current state of the language. Not only will
all your questions be answered there (if they can't answer, who can?),
your reception _may_ be a little friendlier.

After all, it's not polite to compare a language with 40 years of
maturity with a language that has only 10 years. Imagine if you
compared women like that? Hmm, human languages? "English is spoken by
more people than French, so why hasn't English replaced French?" Ask a
few French nationalists. I doubt their replies will be at all polite!

I gave up on the prefix/infix/postfix debate a few decades ago.

Followup adjusted.
--
Email address intentionally munged | You can never browse enough
"Ahh, well. Back to reality." -- Mark Radcliffe

Marco Antoniotti

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to

This preamble is for Erik Naggum! DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT READ THE
FOLLOWING LINK!

Everybody else, read at your own risk. :)

http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html

Marco Antoniotti

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to

"Larry Elmore" <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> writes:

> "Pierre R. Mai" <pm...@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:87u2j25...@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de...
> > Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> writes:
> >

> > > "David J. Cooper" wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...] really strange
> > > > stuff like var++ (what's that??)
> > >

> > > Postfix.
> >
> > And the hodge-podge of prefix, infix and postfix that is your average
> > Algol-like language syntax (whether C, Pascal, Ada or what have you),
> > is often called misfix (from mixfix) by those who loathe it and the
> > complexities (for both compilers and users) that this causes... ;)
>
> Just out of curiousity, what would you call J or APL's notation?

Ideograms. The Asian (and ancient Egyptian) crowd may appreciate it
better than people from the Eternal City. :)

Espen Vestre

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Marco Antoniotti <mar...@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:

> Everybody else, read at your own risk. :)

oh no, please, we've been through that one on the mcl mailing list
lately. That comparision is so bad and so boring, couldn't you
please have left it alone?
--
(espen)

Marco Antoniotti

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes:

Mathematica is (at least it was) a glorified Lisp interpreter, which,
BTW, got a lot of things wrong when it came to defining its "language"
(e.g. variable scoping).

Marco Antoniotti

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to

Espen Vestre <espen@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:

I apologize. :{ I just couldn't resist.

Chris Double

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
"Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> writes:

> How would you judge the chances or merits of Python? Will it
> survive?

There was a post in comp.lang.dylan a couple of months back where the
poster mentioned that in the December 1999 issue of Linux Journal,
Guido van Rossum (the creator of Python) in an interview mentioned
Dylan as "...everything Python is plus so much more...".

I hesitate to mention it as I haven't read the article in question,
don't know the context of the statement and don't want to fuel any
flames but I'm curious if anyone read and can comment on the article.

Chris.

Xah

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Marco Antoniotti <mar...@parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote

> Mathematica is (at least it was) a glorified Lisp interpreter, which,
> BTW, got a lot of things wrong when it came to defining its "language"
> (e.g. variable scoping).

your crime here is bloat of conceit. A major symptom among learned man.
Perhaps you need to make an appointment with doctor Naggum too. If you call
Mathematica in whatever stage a glorified Lisp interpreter, then you might
as well call any functional language that.

I don't like to advocate commercial software, but Mathematica today is quite
many things then a language or computer algebra system.

> BTW, got a lot of things wrong when it came to defining its "language"
> (e.g. variable scoping).

yeah? I'd be interested to hear your opinion in detail. If i'm not mistaken,
i think comp.lang.lisp people would also be interested in hearing occasional
informative discussions of lisp descendents.

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


Marco Antoniotti

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to

Xah <x...@xahlee.org> writes:

> Marco Antoniotti <mar...@parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote
> > Mathematica is (at least it was) a glorified Lisp interpreter, which,
> > BTW, got a lot of things wrong when it came to defining its "language"
> > (e.g. variable scoping).
>
> your crime here is bloat of conceit. A major symptom among learned man.
> Perhaps you need to make an appointment with doctor Naggum too. If you call
> Mathematica in whatever stage a glorified Lisp interpreter, then you might
> as well call any functional language that.

Why not? Isn't lambda calculus at the core of functional programming anyway?

Don't you remember that one of the very first implementations of
Haskell was actually a CMUCL image dump? :)

> I don't like to advocate commercial software, but Mathematica today is quite
> many things then a language or computer algebra system.
>
> > BTW, got a lot of things wrong when it came to defining its "language"
> > (e.g. variable scoping).
>
> yeah? I'd be interested to hear your opinion in detail. If i'm not mistaken,
> i think comp.lang.lisp people would also be interested in hearing occasional
> informative discussions of lisp descendents.

You should have checked my use of tenses. Anyway, while playing
(indeed many years ago) with the remote evaluation facility of
Mathematica you had to eventually hack up a cons-like data structure
to get it evaluated. Hence the re-affirmation of the principle that
every sufficiently complicated "system" contains a Lisp interpreter :)

As per the comment about language design choices, I'll have to dig out
old notes about "local" variable handling and so forth.

I know very well that Mathematica is a very useful and very powerful
system (so are Maple, and Macsyma). Yet, what I said is pretty
much the way I felt when working with it. If things have changed
recently, then it's for the best.

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
* Xah wrote:
>> "David J. Cooper" wrote:
>>> [...] really strange
>>> stuff like var++ (what's that??)

> Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> wrote
>> Postfix.

> shut your pie-hole if you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you claim that I++ is not postfix? A remarkable claim, I think.

--tim

Xah

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
: Martin Rodgers
> Voice in the desert: Quiet, isn't it, Xah?

Don't speak for yourself, Rogers.

>> anyone know Haskell better please extend.
>
> I recommend comp.lang.functional,

and i recommend the Haskell _mailing list_ found in the Haskell language
site.

if we have experts on Haskell syntax here, i'm interested in a live account.
I'm quite capable of reading the Haskell language spec otherwise.

> where they have extensive knowledge
> of Haskell, Haskell compilers, and Haskell applications. They're also
> very realistic about the current state of the language. Not only will
> all your questions be answered there (if they can't answer, who can?),
> your reception _may_ be a little friendlier.
>
> After all, it's not polite to compare a language with 40 years of
> maturity with a language that has only 10 years. Imagine if you
> compared women like that? Hmm, human languages? "English is spoken by
> more people than French, so why hasn't English replaced French?" Ask a
> few French nationalists. I doubt their replies will be at all polite!

I was misunderstood by you. I did not come here to do such comparison and i
did not seek petting replies, but informative or qualitative ones in one way
or another. Every geek in fact loves a good flame war that's devoid of
vacuous babble. The most common worst type are those "you're now in my
killfile" drivel. The common people should start to think about how to rate
the value of a message. Is it how much politeness it imparts? Is it how many
words it contains? Is it purely its relevancy? (and how do you judge
relevancy?) or is it the rarity of technical info or quality of an opinion
expressed? In face to face situations, politeness prevails for many reasons.
In writings, quality of content prevails. I do shameless pretend to be
giving a lesson here to the general public, in the absence of doctor Naggum.

> I gave up on the prefix/infix/postfix debate a few decades ago.

It is good to know, truly. As you intend it, many of us are not qualified to
say we were born few decades ago. Age & experience is not the criterion but
is not to be ignored.

> Followup adjusted.

Bad behavior. I sent an inappropriate reply to that group by mistake as a
result of this. You are not the director of this group, eh? I can post in
comp.lang.functional if i wanted to.

with all due respects, (^_~)

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


Xah

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote:
> Do you claim that I++ is not postfix? A remarkable claim, I think.

my claims are often remarkable, especially in the right context.

Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
I have read that article. I do not quite understand the criteria chosen. It
seems he does not consider speed and he does not consider stability problems
that may arise from the reference counting either.

Clearly Python is a much less sophistacated language that Python and this
has many advanteges. So Python must win if the strong sides of Lisp are not
appreciated.

Janos Blazi

Marco Antoniotti <mar...@parades.rm.cnr.it> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
lw900d6...@parades.rm.cnr.it...


>
> This preamble is for Erik Naggum! DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT READ THE
> FOLLOWING LINK!
>

> Everybody else, read at your own risk. :)
>

> http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html


>
> 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

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to

William Deakin

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Having tried to follow this thread for a while now, I have to ask: What are you
on about? Is english your first language? Given an average level of typos it is
usually possible to work out what is being said. But your level of grammatical
and structural errors fundamentally obscure the content of your postings.

Cheers

:) will


Tim Bradshaw

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
* Xah wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote:
>> Do you claim that I++ is not postfix? A remarkable claim, I think.

> my claims are often remarkable, especially in the right context.

Not to mention wrong, of course.


Dorai Sitaram

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00