Lisp vs. Common Lisp
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: 2010 world cup Spain jerseys,paypal payment and free shipping
Next: An instructive example of trace-function and some example of debugging
From: Nicolas Neuss on 13 Jun 2010 13:40 Giovanni Gigante <giov(a)cidoc.iuav.it> writes: > [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html IIRC, I had read that article some years ago. I have reread it now, but feel quite disappointed. For example, I don't think anyone will worry at all about type declarations in 100 years, because a SSC (if not even AI) won't need those anymore. And since such technology is available to some degree today (and was in 2003, see Stalin Scheme or some JIT compilers), I'm astonished that Paul Graham is so little visionary. Furthermore: the ultimate language wrt simplicity and mathematical beauty is already known since the 1930s and is Lambda Calculus augmented with syntax transformations. Everything else is a DSL:-) Nicolas
From: Elena on 14 Jun 2010 07:32 On 12 Giu, 16:36, Simon <o.si...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > One comment I find a lot when people talk about Lisp is that Lisp is > wonderful, but CL has a lot of problems (problems I cannot understand > due to my newbieness). Now, I don't want to learn the wrong Lisp. Common Lisp has not been designed for teaching Lisp. It has been designed to provide a shared development platform among several several Lisp dialects which were used at that time. You should expect a lot of compromises have gone into its design. I think the CL core language is quite clean, since a lot of CL developers seem to prefer it to other current Lisp dialects. However, it seems that some libraries are obsolete or have proved not effective, or superseded. For further details, check this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/2316d0f5fb475f19/97bb2f944956cf61?lnk=gst&q=elena#97bb2f944956cf61 Cheers > > What do people mean by Lisp in this context? Is it Lisp 1, Lisp 1.5, > the particular dialect they used and fall in love with? > > If this unidentified Lisp is so great, why don't they use it and avoid > all the pitfalls of CL?
From: -BMC- on 14 Jun 2010 11:49 > The most commonly used dialects are Scheme and Common Lisp (and, > depending on your perspective, Emacs Lisp) Pascal, your contributions here (and elsewhere) are always appreciated. Have you any comments about the viability of ISLisp? Zanks, Brian C.
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 14 Jun 2010 13:53 Rainer Joswig <joswig(a)lisp.de> writes: > In article <87vd9orqly.fsf(a)kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>, > pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > >> Giovanni Gigante <giov(a)cidoc.iuav.it> writes: >> >> > Simon wrote: >> >> I'm deeply interested in Lisp. I'm learning it through Peter Seibel's >> >> PCL. >> >> >> >> One comment I find a lot when people talk about Lisp is that Lisp is >> >> wonderful, but CL has a lot of problems (problems I cannot understand >> >> due to my newbieness). Now, I don't want to learn the wrong Lisp. >> >> >> >> What do people mean by Lisp in this context? Is it Lisp 1, Lisp 1.5, >> >> the particular dialect they used and fall in love with? >> >> >> >> If this unidentified Lisp is so great, why don't they use it and avoid >> >> all the pitfalls of CL? >> > >> > >> > From a still-partly-newbie: >> > >> > There is no Lisp per se, nor "unidentified lisp". Lisp is a family of >> > languages. >> > >> > The most evident feature of CL is that it's a very big language. This >> > means that it's either "bloated"/"unelegant" or >> > "feature-rich"/"industrial strength", depending on the point of view. >> >> This is wrong. >> >> In 1984-1986, when Common Lisp has been standardized, the standard >> document was big, compared to other programming languages of that >> time. But if you compared apples-to-apples, and oranges-to-oranges, >> Common Lisp is actually as small a language as any other. > > CL was not standardized in 1984-1986. The language was developed > from 1981 to 1984 in its first version. The book CLtL1 (1984) > documented it, but it was not a standard in the sense > that it was published by ANSI (or IEEE), which it was not. > The language was actually not that big (if one looks at CLtL1 > today) and CLtL1 was a nice book. > > The 'standard' then was developed later, from 1986 on by ANSI X3J13. Thank you, I need to revise my late history of lisp. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 14 Jun 2010 13:56
Giovanni Gigante <giov(a)cidoc.iuav.it> writes: >> Programming languages are all small, on the same order of magnitude. > > > Well, yes, if one takes a look at the whole java for example, suddenly > CL appears of subatomic size. > But I still think that the idea I was reporting has some truth, in the > sense that, apparently, CL was never designed with the "small and > elegant" mindset (while scheme appears to be). > Am I wrong? Who can know what was in the mind of the Great Designers? But for me, grep "Special Operator" clhs.txt > small-and-elegant.txt Smaller and eleganter than Schemer ever! > Maybe there is an universal law anyway, than any succesful "small and > elegant" project inevitably tends to become "feature rich" in the > course of time, until it collapses, and the cycle restarts. Well, CL hasn't collapsed yet. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ |