Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp] 
Author Message
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]

Quote:

> Personally, I'm solving your problem by excluding your messages from
> my news feed from now on.

I'm sorry if I have been too argumentative;  I do like and use LISP or I
wouldn't be here.  I am perhaps opinionated and stubborn, and it seems
like I am putting down LISP at every turn;  its not my intention to
downplay CL but rather to be honest in where I see its weaknesses and
where it could be improved.  People have strong arguments in favor of
the direction that LISP has gone (sometimes a little too strong) and
generally they are not wrong.

The reality of the situation is that I am happy to learn LISP.  As a pet
project I am in the process of implementing my own Lisp dynamic
compiling environment, and in doing so learning the intimates of the
language (as well as Intel x86 assembly, sigh).  I appreciate the levels
of quality the products like LispWorks and Allegro CL provide, and when
I become rich I will probably buy myself a copy of each to develop other
hobby apps in.

Of course, I'd suggest to anyone else that if you are going to post a
message about how ignorant I am, or how much a liar, etc. etc., either
back it up with useful dialogue or send it to me personally.  I don't
really mind a flame war or whatever you are looking to flog, but there
are a lot of respectable people on the list who simply cant have their
time wasted even more by your useless responses.

Also, this isn't comp.lang.lisp.advocacy, but if you want to run about
in a land of denial and spout angry sermons at anyone who challenges
your special world of LISP than you could try creating the newsgroup.
If someone asks on the group "What do you think leads people away from
LISP?" then I figure I'm fair game to lay down my case; the one reflects
the many, and if my opnions are so ignorant and off-base than probably
there are heaps of people sharing it.  The quesion you should ask
yourself, perhaps, is "Why doesn't he know that ALL LISP environments
generate executables like I do?".  The answer will probably be educating
and entertaining, much in the way it can be entertaining to discover
that Canadians in fact neither live in igloos or drive dog sleds to get
around over the snow-covered tundra.

CU
Dobes



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]

Quote:

> Huh?  There are more than two Common Lisp vendors, and Allegro only
> started producing executables under Windows late last year when they
> released Allegro 5.0.  Allegro 3.0.2 which I have been using at school
> for the last term does not.  I suspect that it is not alone in this
> bracket.

I don't know if it (3.x) produces executables as such but it certainly
produces things that are standalone enough that they fit on a floppy
including all the runtime support & GUI stuff.  Until recently I
worked for some people who did exactly that: we had a paper at last
year's LUGM about exactly this.

--tim



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]

Quote:

> Another message has pointed out about 10 lines of code that change
> functional syntax into message-passing syntax.  Its easy, and so are
> other changes to make CLOS more object-oriented-ish.  

I'm sorry you took my code as an attempt to `make CLOS more
object-oriented-ish'.  It wasn't.  It was an attempt to show that
CLOS's model is a superset of the crippled message-passing /
single-dispatch idea seems to be all you recognise as object
oriented.

Quote:
> word never reaches the ears of the
> LISP publishers and standard-setters.

Word reaches them all right. About the last problem CLOS has is lack
of a message-passing syntax.

--tim



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]

Quote:


> > Sometimes "which object is being operated upon?" is not a meaningful
> > question. In my experience, it's not a meaningful question in any code
> > which can be written in a "functional", side-effect-free style.

> OK, I see your point here, but you yourself dictate it as a "functional"
> style, not an object-oriented one.  The case you are referring to is one
> where you have written a "function" that takes some arguments, does some
> processing, and returns value with no side effects.  This is a useful
> functionality to have, but is object-oriented?

Does Common Lisp have Buddha's Nature? What is the sex of Java? How
many calls to malloc can you allocate to the tip of a needle? :)

One thing is sure.  You can do

        (defmethod endless-disquisition ((n nature) (s sex) (nt needle))
           ....)

In Common Lisp. You can't in any other language except Dylan.  :)

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



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]

Quote:

> Do they really generate executables?  I was under the impression they
> didn't.

You seem to be 'under the impression' of a lot of things, e.g. you start
a flame war on the fundamentals of CLOS but later admit that you don't
really know it well.

(hint: The next time it might be better to ask critical questions
 instead of making bombastic and ill-founded claims)

(Yes, it's very easy to generate standalone executables with ACL 5.0)

--

  (espen)



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]
M

Quote:

> > What about the

> >  (defun foo (list x)
> >    (declare (type cons list)
> >             (type integer x)
> >             (values integer))
> >    <body>)

> > I have always wondered why this is not an accepted solution (modulo
> > syntax of course). I sort of understand that having simply VALUES as a
> > 'declaration identifier' (3.3.3 ANSI CL) may cause some problems at
> > the DECLAIM/PROCLAIM level (it wouldn't be clear what the declaration
> > would apply to), but the idea seems correct.  CMUCL has an
> > implementation of this scheme.

> So does Genera.  It's not valid CL, because you're not naming what you're
> declaring.  VALUES is intended for use in FTYPE declarations and in
> THE expressions.  But it was commonplace in Genera to see both this and
> ARGLIST declarations, which were both very handy for Control-Shift-A,
> the thing that tells you the args and values of a function.

I understand the problems with a top-level

(declaim (values integer symbol))  ; VALUES of WHAT?!?

And you could always rewrite

        (defun foo (list x)
           (declare (ftype (function (cons integer) integer) foo))
           <body>)

But would it help?

I think this could be a nice addition to ANSI. Implementation cost is
zero. Add

(declaim (declaration values))

somewhere in the implementation and be done with it.  Of course, the
"implementable" semantics should be well defined of course.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>  (defun my-open (frob &rest open-args)
>    (declare (arglist frob &key element-type direction)
>        (values stream))
>    (apply #'open (frob->filename frob) open-args))

> > > Btw, DEFSTRUCT violates the rule about the CADR being just a name
> > > and causes lots of problems in text editors.

> > Well, also the
> >       (defmethod zut :after ((....
> > wrecks havoc in cl-indent in Emacs.

> I don't like this defmethod syntax, but I don't think it would be a problem
> for cl-indent if they implemented indent the way I implemented it in Teco.
> They ported a lot of my and others' Teco libraries to gnu-emacs when they
> brought it up, but they left behind a lot of features.  The Teco-based
> indenter assumed anything starting with (def... ) should do body-indent
> on the first line after the (def...) that was not a continuation line of
> a subform that started on the first line.  [There were ways to override
> this if you had definitions that didn't match the default, but this was
> not a problem. def expressions vary widely in the number of forms they
> have, and having a rule like "body starts at 2nd or 3rd form" is a bad one.
> The right DEFAULT rule is "definitions have junk on the first line and
> body on the rest of the lines".  Incidentally, this rule even accomodates
> defstruct in its full-blown form.

> I think I might have the code somewhere to the old teco-based indenter.
> Maybe sometime for grins I'll publish it.  Teco was a wonder to
> behold.

Well, I never felt the thrill of TECO programming (which makes me
think of your age, given mine :) )

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



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]


Quote:

> > There is a slightly trivial but unfortunate problem with this in that
> > Symbolics CL (and perhaps also the other LispM flavours of Lisp) uses
> > a VALUES declaration in a different way -- namely to tell the system
> > what the *names* of the value(s) that the function returns are.

> Oh, drat.  You're right.  I said something else about values and was wrong.
> Thanks for (even inadvertently) correcting me.

Well. Too bad for Genera.  As an alternative we could overload RETURN.

        (defun zot (x y z)
          (declare (type integer z)
                   (type (mod 256) x y)
                   (return integer integer))
          <body>)

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



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]

Quote:
> To make the circle round, are there Teco docs available to write a
> Teco emulator for Emacs? ;-)

I seem to have read that a Teco emulator for Emacs is already available.

Paolo
--



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]


Quote:
> But hey, it's free software... except RedHat charges $50 per
> tech-supported license and I hear only has robots on tech-support duty
> and replying to emails.

The Red Hat support "entity" with which I recently interacted by email
behaved like a human being. If it was a robot, I'd like to see its source
code :-)

Paolo
--



Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 350 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software