Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

bolega <gnuist006@gmail.com> writes:

> Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
> world programming ?

What's the real world?
What's real world programming?

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[bolega]

On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
> > world programming ?
>
> What's the real world?
> What's real world programming?
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__                    http://www.informatimago.com/

I mean ordinary people, who may want to do things with their computers
for scripting, tasks that python can do, possibly when a language is
weak and another has library, then use some function from there even
if it is compiled. A set of work around techniques will always be
needed. Things that perl does, python does, bash does etc. things like
java applets for various animations etc. possibly some unoptimized but
fast protyping of parsers to fix files or convert formats etc. a wide
array of user tasks.

Sorry, I dont intend any flame wars ... as a general statement ...

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

bolega <gnuist006@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>> bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
>> > world programming ?
>>
>> What's the real world?
>> What's real world programming?
>>
>> --
>> __Pascal Bourguignon__                    http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> I mean ordinary people, who may want to do things with their computers

Ah, ordinary people.  Then the answer is easy: iPhone and iPad.  
That's computers for ordinary people, and very good at that!


> for scripting, tasks that python can do, possibly when a language is
> weak and another has library, then use some function from there even
> if it is compiled. 

Notice that for a library to work with python, python requires that it
be put under a format acceptable to python.  In the lisp world, we
never imagined to be able to force people to adapt their libraries to
our needs and requimenets.

We have FFI, and we try very hard to work with all sort of random
libraries whatever their implementation language and quality, as if we
were mere C programs.  Sometimes with success, sometimes with failure.


That said, given that the requirements of lisp and of python are
similar, any library that is pythonified, can be integrated in the
lisp environments easily, automatically even, it should only require
some coding if it's not already done.



> A set of work around techniques will always be
> needed. Things that perl does,

Ie. being part of the problem.

Again, you could search cll archives about that (using Erik Naggum as
author this time).  Or you could use this:
http://xach.com/naggum/articles/


http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3163193555464012@naggum.no.html



> python does,

failing at meta programming.


> bash does

failing at anything but oneliner "scripts".


> things like java applets for various animations

What applets?  Have you ever seen a java applet?  Last time I saw one
it must have been fifteen years ago.


> possibly some unoptimized but fast protyping of parsers 

Optimized parser generators were developed 30 years ago.  What's your
problem?


> to fix files or convert formats etc. a wide
> array of user tasks.

files to be fixed and format convertion are not user tasks.   They're
programming tasks, if they're not management problems in the first
place.  Therefore you need a programming language, to write programs,
to fix files, and to convert formats.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Espen Vestre]

pjb@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:

> What applets?  Have you ever seen a java applet?  Last time I saw one
> it must have been fifteen years ago.

I see one each time I log into my internet banking
service. Unfortunately.
-- 
  (espen)

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Elena]

On 10 Giu, 23:33, bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean ordinary people, who may want to do things with their computers
> for scripting, tasks that python can do...

Lisp is not for ordinary people, Python is.

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Tamas K Papp]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:14:01 -0700, bolega wrote:

> Please compare LISP and its virtues with other languages such as
> javascript, python etc.

Generally, it is advisable to cross-post questions like this to at
least 50 other language newsgroups.  For example, you are not giving
Ruby users a fair chance to compare their language to Lisp, Java, and
Python.  Also, you missed Fortran!  The guiding principle should be to
choose a wide range of languages, the more disparate the better.

OTOH, I applaud the lack of specificity.  Lesser minds would have
asked about a specific Lisp dialect, such as CL.  Such things should
be avoided, as they focus the discussion unnecessarily.

Cheers,

Tamas

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Chris Hulan]

Haven't used it but Racket (http://racket-lang.org/) looks to be a new
and improved Scheme

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Elena]

On 11 Giu, 20:03, Chris Hulan <chris.hu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Haven't used it but Racket (http://racket-lang.org/) looks to be a new
> and improved Scheme

I have checked it out and I don't recommend it to others.

Racket is not Scheme anymore (it can't use SLIB, which relies on
common Scheme facilities). Racket is a language and an environment on
their own. For instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE,
therefore you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice.
Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much more
than that.

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[tfgordon]

Consider Clojure:  http://clojure.org/

You might want to watch one of these videos for an overview:

http://clojure.blip.tv/

There is also evidence that Clojure is currently the most popular
Lisp, more "popular" than Scheme or Common Lisp, whatever that means:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=common+lisp,+scheme+language,+clojure

-Tom G.

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[vanekl]

Antti "Andy" Ylikoski wrote:
snip
> Maybe it could be a good idea for someone to write an academic study
> of all these available Lisp implementations.  Even Interlisp still
> lives, as it was recently noted in this newsgroup.  (I did not check
> the Google.  Has someone alredy done so?  Ie. studied the existing
> many Lisp implementations?)
>
> regards, Antti J. Ylikoski
> Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.

Common Lisp Implementations: A Survey
http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html

You bring up a good point -- there are so many mature lisp
implementations
that you can "jump" implementations until you find one that meets your
needs.
--
Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[George Neuner]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:08 +0300, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski"
<antti.ylikoski@gmail.com> wrote:

>OT:  (very Off Topic.............)
>I would not trust dolphins to take care of my investments.

Why not?  Remember the chimpanzee that picked stocks and beat many
professional fund managers?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dart-throwing-chimp-still-making-monkey-of-internet-funds?pagenumber=2


The average dolphin's brain is bigger than the average human's (and
far bigger than a chimpanzee's).  Dolphin investment strategies might
look fishy to us but dolphins have a unique point of view on important
industries such as transportation, telecommunications, construction,
tourism, energy exploration, food production, etc.  

I'd trust a dolphin over a Wall Street fund manager any day.

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[bolega]

On Jun 12, 2:02 am, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski"
<antti.yliko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 10.6.2010 23:14, bolega kirjoitti:
>
>
>
> > Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real
> > world programming ?
>
> >http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation
>
> > Kindly pick one from commercial and one from open-source .
>
> > The criteria is :
>
> > libraries, gui interface and builder, libraries for TCP, and evolving
> > needs.
>
> > Please compare LISP and its virtues with other languages such as
> > javascript, python etc.
>
> > I put javascript in the context that it is very similar in its
> > architecture (homoiconic ie same representation for data-structures
> > and operations, ie hierarchical, which means nested-lists<=>  n-ary
> > tree<=>  binary tree<=>  linked-list<=>  dictionary<=>  task-subtask,
> > and implicitly based on what C calls pointers, and at machine level
> > the indirect addressing of memory) to lisp family.
>
> > I put python in the context that it has the most extensive libraries
> > and shares the build-fix virtue of lisp highlighted by Paul Graham in
> > his books. Python is touted for its rapid prototyping of guis. It
> > syntax enforces stable format which guards against programmer malice
> > or sloppiness - so that there is a certain level of legacy code
> > readability.
>
> > Both have eval but not clear what is the implementation efficiency to
> > justify the habit of excessively using it.
>
> > Certainly, lisp/scheme are excellent for learning the concepts of
> > programming languages due to its multi-paradigm nature and readily
> > available code of the elementary interpreter.
>
> > Is there an IDE for these lispish-scheming languages ? Is there
> > quality implementation for Eclipse ? Emacs pre-supposes some knowledge
> > of these so that newbie can get stuck. Also, emacs help is not very
> > good.
>
> > Is there a project whereby the internal help of emacs (analogous to
> > its man pages) are being continuously being updated AND shared ? I
> > have never seen updates to the help. Perhaps, the commercial people
> > are doing it, even from the posts of the newsgroups, but the public
> > distros or these newsgroups have NEVER made such an announcement.
>
> > Explanations integrated into the help are more important than the
> > books - its like the wikipedia incorporated into emacs.
>
> > Is there support for the color highlighting of the code by hovering as
> > on this page ?
>
> >http://community.schemewiki.org/?lexical-scope
>
> > Which book/paper has the briefest minimal example of gui design along
> > XML nested/hiearchical elements with event-listeners for lisp/scheme ?
>
> > Thanks
>
> I have used several available LISP systems such as the Gigamonkeys CLISP
> Lispbox, and the Clozure Common LISP.
>
> The system which I currently am using is the Franz Allegro Common LISP.
>   It is a commercial product; and so far I have had no problems with the
> Allegro.  (NB: I am using the Express version.  I feel that the full
> scale commercial license is not exceedingly expensive.)
>
> (Right now I'm studying and working with the exercises in Peter Norvig's
> book Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming.  I have done 16
> of the 25 chapters.)
>
> This is not an advertisement.  If someone wishes to criticize that
> product, or if someone would like to suggest some other equally usable
> implementation, of course please feel free to do so.
>
> regards, Antti J. Ylikoski
> Helsinki, Finland, the E.U.

What was your main reason for picking the Allegro (commercial) as
opposed to one of the open source ones ? Is there anything in this old
norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?

http://norvig.com/paip.html

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Pascal Costanza]

On 12/06/2010 19:36, bolega wrote:
> Is there anything in this old
> norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ?
>
> http://norvig.com/paip.html

This "old" book by Peter Norvig is still one of the best Common Lisp 
introductions you can find, and has some excellent material that is not 
covered elsewhere. If you are interested in some fundamental AI concepts 
at the same time, this is one of the best choices.


Pascal

-- 
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

bolega <gnuist006@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > [PAIP]
>
> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth
> pursuing as a text ?

Yes.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Tamas K Papp]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:02:32 +0300, Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski wrote:

> Any good modern LISP textbooks out there?

Practical Common Lisp.

Tamas

Re: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

"Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski@gmail.com> writes:

> 12.6.2010 22:54, Pascal J. Bourguignon kirjoitti:
>> bolega<gnuist006@gmail.com>  writes:
>>>
>>>> [PAIP]
>>>
>>> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth
>>> pursuing as a text ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> I agree with his criticism that the book is "old", mine stems from the
> year 1992.

That's not "old".  An old book is one that is falling in powder when
you're reading it.  Eg. the Quran manuscripts are "old".  But any book
since Gutenberg's invention is not old.  For a book, that is.



> I bought and studied the Russell-Norvig books on "Artificial
> Intelligence: A Modern Approach", ie. the 1th, 2nd (and in the future
> the 3rd edition), in order to learn modern AI theory.  They have
> discontinued the 3rd edition but I succeeded in ordering a copy
> anyway. I have read the 1st and the 2nd editions, but I have not yet
> received by mail the 3rd edition.
>
> But I only got the PAIP book to learn Common LISP, not in order to
> study modern AI.  This  is why I'm discussing this in the
> new:comp.lang.LISP newsgroup.
>
> Any good modern LISP textbooks out there?
>
> Can anyone point to me any other good modern textbooks on AI than the
> 3rd edition of the Russell-Norvig book?  (Which is reputable.)

If we said it is the last AI book written using Lisp, would that make
it worth reading?    There's nothing newer in AI!   :-)


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/