Anyone heard of Bee Lisp?
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: A pascal generator in CL ?
Next: lightweight database
From: Tamas K Papp on 17 Mar 2010 05:41 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:57:15 -0700, Coddie wrote: > future releases we'll get more close to CL). I'm of course, aware of > some other implementations that are older than BEE Lisp. But their > foreign language interface (i.e. interface to api) is more compicated as > well. And, speaking about price, those implementations are far more > expensive. BEE Lisp was written from scratch, so it is NOT an wrap over That's a lie - not all of them are more expensive. In fact, there are excellent _free_ CL implementations out there. > a GPL implementation like someone said here. And of course, it is not a And of course you know about them... > main BEE Lisp features. P.S. Speaking about Sufferer, I haven't noticed > ANY home page in his profile :) I have seen it too, he may have changed it in the meantime. Don't worry, creating false endorsements for worthless products is not as easy as it initially looks, you guys will get better at it gradually. At best, BEE Lisp is a joke implementation, easily dominated by freely available CL and Scheme implementations. You keep hinting at some vague advantage to C programmers, and "difficulties" with foreign function interfaces of existing dialects/implementations, but so far you have failed to make any convincing arguments. You won't get away with handwaving here: you have to point at an actual FFI and tell us why you find it hard to use, and how BEE Lisp is better. I wonder why you are doing this. Trying to sell a product like this on c.l.l is like walking into a physics conference and trying to sell perpetual motion devices. Maybe you get the occasional sucker who won't google for 3 minutes to learn more about Lisp before making a purchase on your website, but then it is in your best interest to keep a low profile and not engage in any arguments. Tamas
From: Coddie on 17 Mar 2010 06:00 Well, of course I heard about GPL implementations - but none of them looks easy to use for me. There are commercial implementations however, that are more convinient than GPL ones, but they are more expensive. I see, Tamas, you really don't like BEE Lisp :) So - it is your right - people have different taste. For example, some of them like Linux and really hate Windows (and windows users also : ) - others have opposite opinion, and some of IT professionals like both Win and Linux. The same thing may be applied to languages and compilers =) Well, I really hope that our customers appear on this discussion some day and say what they think about product they purchased by themselves. And I think they google a lot before purchasing BEE Lisp. Some of them post a mail to support with their questions (and, we answer them of course) before taking a descision to buy BEE Lisp.
From: Tamas K Papp on 17 Mar 2010 06:17 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:00:19 -0700, Coddie wrote: > Well, of course I heard about GPL implementations - but none of them > looks easy to use for me. There are commercial implementations however, "Looks"? Have you actually tried them? Do you have anything concrete to say about them? > that are more convinient than GPL ones, but they are more expensive. > I see, Tamas, you really don't like BEE Lisp :) So - it is your right - > people have different taste. For example, some of them like Linux and > really hate Windows (and windows users also : ) - others have opposite You are trying to fudge the issue here, trying to make this sound like a matter of taste instead of entering into a discussion about the technical merits of BEE Lisp (or the lack thereof). This approach is understandable, given that it would be hard to compete with mature CL or Scheme implementations. I find your strategy dishonest, but you have to work with what you've got. > thing may be applied to languages and compilers =) Well, I really hope > that our customers appear on this discussion some day and say what they > think about product they purchased by themselves. And I think they Please, don't bother making up fake posters who will "endorse" your product. To sum up: during this discussion, you haven't made a single technical argument concerning BEE Lisp, the choices you made when implementing it, why you made them, etc. As long as you avoid technical discussions about your product, it will be treated as bogus, no matter how many fake endorsements we get. Best, Tamas
From: Coddie on 17 Mar 2010 06:44 Technical descisions... Ok, let's show some of them here. As I said we took classical Lisp for a basis. The main goal of BEE Lisp was to provide a convinient way to talk to DLLs. There were some possible approaches. We could make our users to describe API prototypes (something that FFI requires) before they could use it, but we decided to allow just a mention of function name and a DLL where it is located. Why? First of all, to reduce amount of code user has to type. This approach however, has it's disadvantage - you may give for example less parameters to a function and cause an exception in your app. So it's not a "type-safe" language. However, programmers usually look into a documentation of particular API and pass correct amount of parameters. By the way pure C has same feature, but it still beloved language of systems programmers. So, we made a choice of reducing coding in this issue. A DLL, coded in BEE Lisp may contain "native" functions and C++-like functions. In first case, you define a function via DEFUN form and this function will contain Lisp native types - ATOMS and Lists as it's parameters. You may however, use them from C++ via LispObject interface. Other functions - non-native may have C-like parameters - integers, strings, structures etc. Well, BEE Lisp "kernel" is rather minimalistic in this issue , but is upgradable through additional libraries user may write in lisp itself or as an "COM-addon". For example, LISPPAD sample has some sort of C- like structures support, that is implemented in struct.lsp. We also implemented BEE Lisp as a series of COM servers, so user may drive compilation process programmatically. It allows him to make for example an IDE for BEE Lisp or something like that. BEE Lisp however, integrates itself into PSPad a popular multilanguage IDE. And by the way, you haven't pointed concrete free (or commercial) implementation here to compare BEE Lisp with.
From: Coddie on 17 Mar 2010 06:46
I suppose we should redesign our website and add some kind of forum to it to move such descussion there... |