Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: ANN: SymbolicWeb v0.1 (quite alpha) w/ source code this time
Next: Greenspunning ML (revisited)
From: Edi Weitz on 6 May 2008 13:55 On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:20:29 -0400, George Neuner <gneuner2/@/comcast.net> wrote: >>How many useful and/or successful Windows apps have been written in >>pure standard C plus standard POSIX? > > Zero ... it can't be done. Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make. > Windows itself abuses portability. The code between the GUI glue > can be portable but the whole cannot be. That's different for GUI programs on OS X or KDE or Gnome? -- Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny. Real email: (replace (subseq "spamtrap(a)agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Rainer Joswig on 6 May 2008 14:31 In article <7c7ie7wf03.fsf(a)pbourguignon.anevia.com>, pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > Robert Uhl <eadmund42(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> writes: > > > Edi Weitz <spamtrap(a)agharta.de> writes: > >> > >>> I'm no longer writing CL, I'm writing a dialect of CL that is > >>> dependent on the success or otherwise of my vender. > >> > >> How is that different from C/C++? > > > > With standard C plus standard POSIX, you're pretty much certain that > > your app will run anywhere important. You're not certain that it'll run > > fast or particularly well, and of course there are those edge cases that > > need to be taken care of--but my perception is that C+POSIX is much more > > reliable a platform than Common Lisp. > > In a world of closed source, proprietary OS like we had 20 years ago, > yes. > > In a world of free software, easily downloadable from the Net, and > installable on any machine, not anymore, C+POSIX is not more reliable > a platform than Common Lisp or anything else. For example, IIRC, > MacOSX 10.5 is delivered to the users with ruby, without gcc. The development tools are on the Mac OS X installer DVD. You have to install them. > It's not harder to download darwin ports, and type port install sbcl > to get a CL platform than it is to type port install gcc to get a > C+POSIX one. > > I don't have the impression that MS-Windows is delivered to the users > with a C compiler either... Download for download, you can as well > download sbcl or clisp to make your MS-Windows box a programmable > computer. > > > > It's also much more low-level and much more prone to segfaults and > > security holes. At the moment I'd rather program in non-portable CL > > than in portable C, but that's me. -- http://lispm.dyndns.org/
From: Pertti Kellomäki on 5 May 2008 03:18 pls.mrjm(a)gmail.com wrote: > On 4 Mag, 05:08, scholz.lot...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> 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? 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
From: John Thingstad on 5 May 2008 04:59 P� Mon, 05 May 2008 09:18:11 +0200, skrev Pertti Kellom�ki <pertti.kellomaki(a)tut.fi>: > pls.mrjm(a)gmail.com wrote: >> On 4 Mag, 05:08, scholz.lot...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>> 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? > > 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. 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
From: Johan Ur Riise on 6 May 2008 15:00
"John Thingstad" <jpthing(a)online.no> writes: > Just like 80% of the population think they drive better than average You know, this is possible, if there are a few really bad drivers. CL-USER> (defparameter *population* (cons 0 (cons 0 (loop repeat 8 collect 99)))) *POPULATION* CL-USER> *population* (0 0 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99) CL-USER> (defun mean (list) (float (/ (reduce #'+ list) (length list)))) MEAN CL-USER> (mean *population*) 79.2 CL-USER> (count 79.2 *population* :test '<) 8 CL-USER> (length *population*) 10 CL-USER> |