A Collections Framework?
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: scheme problem
Next: lisp student job offer
From: Norbert_Paul on 15 May 2010 10:46 Tamas K Papp wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:57:25 +0300, Captain Obvious wrote: > >> A problem with "collections framework" for CL is just that nobody wrote >> one. > > I can't say that I am missing a super-general standardized collections > framework. I find that the building blocks CL provides (lists, > arrays, hash tables) are enough most of the time, and when they > aren't, you can easily create new ones. You can even extend de facto > standard libraries like iterate to traverse your custom collections > (where applicable). > > Reading this thread was interesting, but I am yet to be convinced that > writing a collections framework in CL that is similar to Java's is worth > the trouble. > > Tamas So is this a verbose "No." to my initial question "Is there something Comparable ($\ddot\smile$) to the Java Collections Framework in LISP." ? Hence the issue is closed now. (Even if there is cl-containers and FSet) Norbert
From: Norbert_Paul on 15 May 2010 10:47 Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2010-05-15 13:57:25 +0100, Captain Obvious said: > >> To start with, there is a problem with classification even before you >> come to an implementation. >> There are associative containers, iteratable containers, searchable >> ones, ones where you can insert in the middle, into one or both of its >> ends, or it just doesn't matter where you insert, there are ones which >> support indexing and ones which do not... >> Some of these traits are orthogonal and some are not. For example, if >> collection provides index access, then for sure it is ordered and >> iteratable. > > I think there's really a choice here. One can either spend some enormous > amount of time designing and implementing a vast framework to do > everything you might ever want to do, discover your design is wrong, > drink some coffee, iterate the design a few times until it looks good, > discover the implementation's performance sucks, drink more coffee, > iterate it a few times until it doesn't suck as much, discover the > language really needs new features to make the thing usable at all, do a > little speed, implement them, get them wrong [*], iterate that a few > times, discover it is now so complicated no one can understand it, > coffee, speed, a little crack maybe, write a book or two to describe it, > discover that Microsoft has implemented a culturally compatible but > better version of all this and stolen your user base, mostly crack by > now really though you pretend it's all under control, struggle to > compete for a while, lose your job, live on the street, just temporarily > you understand, hustling for whetever you can get, smell really bad, die > in some shop doorway. Or you can, you know, not do that and just > implement what you actually need. > > I vote for the second of these options. > > [*] Java is approximately here. > And yet an even more verbose "No." to my initial question. Norbert
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 15 May 2010 11:19 On 2010-05-15 10:47:33 -0400, Norbert_Paul said: > And yet an even more verbose "No." to my initial question. > Norbert No, a very amusing response which boils down to "the perfect is the enemy of the good." warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Antony on 15 May 2010 13:57 Tim Bradshaw wrote: One can either spend some > enormous amount of time designing and implementing a vast framework to > do everything you might ever want to do, discover your design is wrong, > drink some coffee, iterate the design a few times until it looks good, > discover the implementation's performance sucks, drink more coffee, > iterate it a few times until it doesn't suck as much, discover the > language really needs new features to make the thing usable at all, do a > little speed, implement them, get them wrong [*], > .... > [*] Java is approximately here. > I happen to be doing C#/.net stuff for about an year now and found my working with it (C# and .net but not much other parts of the env) way better than Java (mostly cause I couldn't resist using generics in both) But just recently I stumbled across a simple (I think) need that was not met even in the .net kitchensink. I could not find (maybe I looked wrong) a type safe (or generic or whatever the .net terminology) dynamic array where I could set an arbitrary element and have the array grow automatically and fill the unfilled indexes with defaults. Seems like a simple requirement. given the size of that kitchen sink (and the money backing it), I found that surprising. (Hopefully this is somewhat on topic, may be as a comparison :) ) -Antony
From: Tim Bradshaw on 15 May 2010 16:40
On 2010-05-15 15:47:33 +0100, Norbert_Paul said: > And yet an even more verbose "No." to my initial question. Actually, an explanation of why so many Java people end up living on the street. |