> I completely agree; if common lisp cant solve my problem as quickly
> as, say, Perl, it's no wonder its unpopular among 20somethings >: b
I'm 36 and reading Ansi Common Lisp did not get me very far, while
Learning Perl 2nd Edition was exactly what I needed to get started
and write myself a few scripts that I use for work.
I'd love to be able to do that with Lisp too.
> Yeah, and people spend entire semesters studying the theory behind
> regular expressions. But if you're looking for a regex library, you
> know what a regex is, just like if you're looking for a unit test
> library, you know what software testing is. You shouldn't have to
> wade through pages of documentation to find the lisp equivalent of
>
> if ( $target_string =~ m/$regex/ ) {
> . . . . regex matched, so do some stuff . . . .
> }
>
> It should be on the very first page, preferably before an extended
> description of why the library is cool. The library is cool if it is
> immediately obvious that it solves my problem in a timely fashion.
I totally agree here. I am not sure it is necessary (tell me if I'm
wrong) but I'd like to write stuff for total beginners that include
how to do i/o with the file system, and other simple stuff that are
not always in the books (implementation dependant, platform
dependant) etc.
It may be pointless, but I'd like to do my 100 lines perl stuff in
Lisp. I have OSX so I can try a few implementations and put all that
on a comprehensive page.
Jean-Christophe Helary
_______________________________________________
Gardeners mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
