People are beginning to complain that the pro@ list is becoming
similar to comp.lang.lisp, and there also have been several
unsubscriptions today and yesterday. Can this topic please be put to
a rest or taken where it belongs?
Thanks,
Hans
___
pro mail
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Nick Levine wrote:
>> I can't find any libraries.
>
> I think this is one of the most serious issues which is blocking the
> growth of lisp use. Speaking as someone who recently gave up trying to
> write a book on how to use CL's libraries: locating them and knowin
Using (string-count-str (get-url-as-string
"http://docs.python.org/py3k/modindex.html";) "#module")
I show that there are 291 projects listed on that python page.
But (string-count-str (get-url-as-string
""http://common-lisp.net/projects.shtml";) "/project/")
tells me that there are 416 project
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2011, at 21:00, Zach Beane wrote:
>
>> That's one of the reasons why it's still in beta. I need to gather
>> useful, descriptive info about each project and make it easily
>> available.
>
> What would you recommend to the library providers to make this job easier
Not to sound like I'm complaining (quicklisp is awesome btw), but if
http://www.quicklisp.org/beta/releases.html had descriptions of what the
packages actually did (or links to their respective homepage, or docstrings,
or something), that would be wonderful.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Zach B
I have been a beginner lisp developer for years largely because the is just
a large problem with answering the question "I want to make a website, but
what a pain to figure
out where to start", I want to X. I would be down to contribute.
This lisp learning curve is large, and figuring out the exa
On 21 Jan 2011, at 21:00, Zach Beane wrote:
> "Drew Csillag (sounds like cheese-log)" writes:
>
>> Not to sound like I'm complaining (quicklisp is awesome btw), but if http://
>> www.quicklisp.org/beta/releases.html had descriptions of what the packages
>> actually did (or links to their respec
Nick Levine writes:
>We're getting there. See http://www.quicklisp.org/
>
>Especially, see http://www.quicklisp.org/beta/releases.html
>
> It doesn't say what any one of them do. There's no way (am I right?)
> to look up form what I want to do to what exists to do it.
Very true, and some
"Drew Csillag (sounds like cheese-log)" writes:
> Not to sound like I'm complaining (quicklisp is awesome btw), but if http://
> www.quicklisp.org/beta/releases.html had descriptions of what the packages
> actually did (or links to their respective homepage, or docstrings, or
> something), that w
We're getting there. See http://www.quicklisp.org/
Especially, see http://www.quicklisp.org/beta/releases.html
It doesn't say what any one of them do. There's no way (am I right?)
to look up form what I want to do to what exists to do it.
- n
__
Nick Levine writes:
>> I can't find any libraries.
>
> I think this is one of the most serious issues which is blocking the
> growth of lisp use. Speaking as someone who recently gave up trying to
> write a book on how to use CL's libraries: locating them and knowing
> in advance of downloading t
On 21 Jan 2011, at 20:34, Nick Levine wrote:
>> I can't find any libraries.
>
> I think this is one of the most serious issues which is blocking the
> growth of lisp use. Speaking as someone who recently gave up trying to
> write a book on how to use CL's libraries: locating them and knowing
> i
> I can't find any libraries.
I think this is one of the most serious issues which is blocking the
growth of lisp use. Speaking as someone who recently gave up trying to
write a book on how to use CL's libraries: locating them and knowing
in advance of downloading them what their purpose is are ma
Quoting Vladimir Sedach :
> 2. There are no libraries to do /I can't find any libraries.
It may sound shocking, but there's non-programmers out there who
complain if there isn't a free-as-in-beer application to do what they
want. This argument is the programmer corollary. It always appears to
me
On Jan 21, 2011, at 2:40, Tord Romstad wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:22 PM, karol skocik wrote:
>> Some time ago, I tried to communicate on IRC channel about a very,
>> very simple addition:
>> string+, which is obviously a nice, small name for (apply
>> #'concatenate 'string strings).
>
>
On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Erik Winkels wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:48:50AM -0500, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
>>
>> Our utility library calls it "strcat". I think string-concat is
>> probaby better.
I picked 'strcat' as a nod to C, but I wholeheartedly fall into
the Dave Moon camp: more d
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:48:50AM -0500, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
>
> Our utility library calls it "strcat". I think string-concat is
> probaby better.
>
> Dave Moon established the general ethic on the Lisp machine of using
> longer, clearer names in general.
I generally prefer more descriptive (
On 1/21/11 6:01 AM, Svante Carl v. Erichsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi!
>
> I should call it string-conc, conc-string, or conc->string. I should
> not expect from first sight that either, string+ or string*, would
> concatenate. From those names, it also would
"Svante Carl v. Erichsen" writes:
> Hi!
>
> I should call it string-conc, conc-string, or conc->string. I should
> not expect from first sight that either, string+ or string*, would
> concatenate. From those names, it also would seem surprising that
> they can take any sequences, not just strin
I didn't really about the name that much (unless it's overly verbose).
The problem I tried to mention was the attitude of other developers to
such a simple addition.
Karol
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Tord Romstad wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Svante Carl v. Erichsen
> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Svante Carl v. Erichsen
wrote:
>
> I should call it string-conc, conc-string, or conc->string.
I actually agree. What I meant is that if you really want to use a
mathematical operator for this, multiplication is the natural choice.
Your suggestions above -- at le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
I should call it string-conc, conc-string, or conc->string. I should
not expect from first sight that either, string+ or string*, would
concatenate. From those names, it also would seem surprising that
they can take any sequences, not just strin
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:22 PM, karol skocik wrote:
> Some time ago, I tried to communicate on IRC channel about a very,
> very simple addition:
> string+, which is obviously a nice, small name for (apply
> #'concatenate 'string strings).
Pet peeve: string+ is a *small* name, but it is not a *n
I really didn't appreciate this whole discussion, but I think I can
contribute a few points about how to think about the problem so that
things like this will stop happening.
There are two assertions being made here:
* "Lisp is falling behind"
* "To stop Lisp falling behind, we need to do "
No o
On 20 January 2011 13:16, Sam Steingold wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Drew Crampsie wrote:
>> The root of the perceived problem is a lack of resources, not a lack
>> of effort or desire on the part of the "lisp community".
>
> I think Franz, Lispworks, ITA et al are vital parts of th
Correction:
Daniel Weinreb wrote:
>
> As for me, if the Google acquisition of ITA happens, chances
> are that I won't be allowed to use Common Lisp,
Sorry, what I meant was that it was unlikely
that we'd be able to use Common Lisp for
NEW projects. I am confident that Google
is not so brain-dead
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Sam Steingold wrote:
> I think Franz, Lispworks, ITA et al are vital parts of the "lisp community".
> I think the fact that none of them is paying anyone to maintain SLIME,
> ALU wiki, common-lisp.net &c
> is indicative of understandable but deplorable corporate
I would like to add, that in our community seems to be a very low
collaboration factor between random developers working on OSS
software, in comparison to other communities.
One would say, sure there are a lot of distinct interests, but this
happens even on common interests (decent utilities librar
Sam Steingold wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:16:10PM -0500:
>
> I think Franz, Lispworks, ITA et al are vital parts of the "lisp community".
> I think the fact that none of them is paying anyone to maintain SLIME,
> ALU wiki, common-lisp.net &c
> is indicative of understandable but deplorable c
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Drew Crampsie wrote:
>
> I do, however, think that comparing the work produced by the open
> source CL community to that produced by multi-billion dollar
> corporations is both unfair and counter-productive. Apple and Google
> have something to sell, and are aggres
On 20 January 2011 12:03, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> Here's my own interpretation of what Drew said, which I admit
> may or may not be what he had in mind. (I do agree that he
> said it in a rude way.)
In my own defense, i immediately followed up with this :
"Didn't quite mean to be
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> One of the things you can also notice in the communities of more
> popular languages is that people get a lot more positive feedback,
> including for a lot more trivial contributions. I believe that this
> is one of the reasons (not the only one) why t
Alex,
I think your approach is counterproductive. The Common Lisp community is not
very large, and to the best of my knowledge, the majority of people _I_ know
who are part of this community really try hard to improve the infrastructure,
the libraries and the tools, to the extent they can affor
Alexander,
Here's my own interpretation of what Drew said, which I admit
may or may not be what he had in mind. (I do agree that he
said it in a rude way.) The heart of what he wrote is:
>>
>> And i'm not convinced a mailing list for professional lisp developers
>> needs more diatribes explainin
On 20 January 2011 11:46, Alexander Repenning wrote:
> Hi Drew,
> perhaps the point of a mailing list for professional lisp developers is to
> act, well ... professional?
Is it professional to publish what was intended as private
correspondence on a public mailing list?
> Remember one of the po
As one of the list moderators, might I interject two words here:
"please" and "stop"?
I agree with Drew's sentiments, if not completely with his tone.
But if his tone offends you or anyone else, please reply to him
off-list.
Let's keep this list very focused. Thanks!
--Scott
On Jan 20, 2011, a
Hi Drew,
perhaps the point of a mailing list for professional lisp developers is to act,
well ... professional?
Remember one of the points made in original article about the Lisp community:
"The community isn’t nearly as blood thirsty as some people might portrait it."
Seems to me you just co
Alexander Repenning wrote:
> is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScript
> versus Common Lisp I can see a scary performance cross over point in
> the near future (months). Already, in some of our benchmarks
> JavaScript running in OS X Chrome is getting very close (10% ga
[Forgot to reply all, so this went as a private mail to Alexander]
On Thursday 20 January 2011 09:34 PM, Alexander Repenning wrote:
> would be to compile it down to JavaScript, yes, JavaScript, not C
So you mean that Javascript will eventually become faster than C? If so,
then its not a problem
Alex: I realize this isn't your central point but I'm curious what
benchmark(s) you're citing?
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alexander Repenning wrote:
> One point made:
>
> > It’s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
>
> is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScr
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Alessio Stalla wrote:
> Are there big systems written in JS? I'm not aware of any.
>
Not stand-alone desktop apps, but Google's browser-hosted applications (the
GoogleDocs suite, GMail, Maps) are written in JavaScript (using their
unfortunately named Closure tool
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Brian Taylor wrote:
> Alex: I realize this isn't your central point but I'm curious what
> benchmark(s) you're citing?
Hi Brian,
Here is an older list of application level (computation + visualization)
benchmarks: http://weup.sourceforge.net/demos/rm/index.html
Alessio Stalla wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:46:15PM +0100:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Martin Cracauer
> wrote:
> > Alessio Stalla wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:03PM +0100:
> >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Alexander Repenning
> >> wrote:
> >> > One point made:
> >> >
> >> >
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Martin Cracauer
wrote:
> Alessio Stalla wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:03PM +0100:
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Alexander Repenning
>> wrote:
>> > One point made:
>> >
>> >> It?s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
>> >
>> > is still mostly tr
Alessio Stalla wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:38:03PM +0100:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Alexander Repenning
> wrote:
> > One point made:
> >
> >> It?s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
> >
> > is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScript versus
> > Commo
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Alexander Repenning
wrote:
> One point made:
>
>> It’s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
>
> is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScript versus
> Common Lisp I can see a scary performance cross over point > in the near
> future (m
One point made:
> It’s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScript versus Common
Lisp I can see a scary performance cross over point in the near future
(months). Already, in some of our benchmarks JavaScript running in OS X Chro
This is a very nice essay to help people get over their
initial problems with Lisp:
http://pavelpenev.posterous.com/learning-lisp-the-bump-free-way
I also just came across an online book called "Successful Lisp",
by David B. Lamkins (maybe many of you already know
about this):
http://psg.com/~dl
48 matches
Mail list logo
