What is the best way to process this list
in [Lisp]
|
From: mdj on 12 Jan 2010 08:12 On 12 Jan, 23:07, Nicolas Neuss <lastn...(a)math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote: > mdj <mdj....(a)gmail.com> writes: > > I give up. What exactly is your problem ? > > I give up as well. What precisely didn't you understand? Why the content of my post upset you enough to ask me to shut up.
From: Tamas K Papp on 12 Jan 2010 09:01 On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:58:40 -0800, mdj wrote: > On 12 Jan, 22:24, Nicolas Neuss <lastn...(a)math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote: > >> > Fair enough. I'm over the banal arguments that ensue from direct >> > accusation so diffusing into observation seems more peaceful. >> >> Even more peaceful would be if you would then keep those >> non-specifiable observations to yourself. > > I give up. What exactly is your problem ? Maybe this: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:43:20 -0800, mdj wrote: > To me, the arrogance of the newcomers pales in comparison to the > arrogance of some 'experts' - at least in the case of the newcomer we > *know* it's born of ignorance. At times when I see a seasoned user > accuse a newcomer of "braindamaged" thinking that's the result of using > 'inferior' tools I'm forced to wonder whether those individuals really > do *know* why Lisp is better at certain things or whether they > themselves simply *believe* it. It is a serious accusation, but at the same time, it is diffuse so people can't defend themselves. It is a sneaky thing to say things like this, unless you can substantiate it. Many people devote their time to help newbies on this forum. If you have a problem with the style of a particular person, then please say so and provide a link to an example. Otherwise, just refrain from making non-specific unpropitious statements. Tamas
From: Kenneth Tilton on 12 Jan 2010 10:54 Nick Keighley wrote: > On 8 Jan, 12:12, Nicolas Neuss <lastn...(a)math.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote: >> Ron Garret <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> writes: > >>> This is not really Peter's fault, by the way. Lisp pedagogy is >>> hobbled by the fact that Common Lisp has built-in support for >>> particular implementations of associative maps, but not for abstract >>> associative maps. This, BTW, is consistent with another point of view >>> that has a significant constituency within the Lisp community, to wit, >>> that CL is a language for experts and the fact that it does not cater >>> to beginners is a feature, not a bug. > > I deserve to be flamed but... Speaking as someone who is thinking > about learning Lisp... > >> I would be interested in who is claiming such a thing. Quite the >> opposite, I think that most of us think >> >> 1. CL is a language for everyone with good taste. >> >> 2. It does cater to beginners at least as much as the very popular >> languages C or Java, > > the sheer size of Lisp looks scarey. Yes, and it does not cover enough. Damn language! > Though I'm not sure how much of a > monster Java has become. Oh, so you do not know anything about Java, either. > >> and surely much more than C++. > > agreed C++ is pretty nasty. Though "Accelerated C++" has an > interesting approach as it goes "middle out". It does containers > before arrays. Pointer arithmatic and arrays are regarded as advanced > techniques. The full horror of templates is avoided pretty much > entirely (ie. you're taught to be a template *user* rather than a > template implementor). ie, templates are not part of the language. Unless you consider programming to be the art of sitting around waiting for someone else to write the template you need. > >> (Also the >> difference in accessibility to Scheme or Python is not large, IMO.) > > having learnt both of those... Good beginners books seem to be thin on > the ground for Common Lisp. This may not actually be true but finding > scheme and python starter books is much easier. Books? What's that? > >> 3. Where it does not, there are either important reasons, or you can >> easily adapt it to your needs. > > Lisp may be wonderful but beginner friendly it is not. But maybe I > lack taste. You did not say why so you don't count. kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: Pillsy on 12 Jan 2010 11:13 On Jan 12, 7:54 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 Jan, 10:39, John Thingstad <jpth...(a)online.no> wrote: [...] > > Lisp is different. All names for common things are different. So > > assosiative transfer works rather poorly. > well I'm learning scheme and presumably that would give me the same > problem. It's less of a problem with Scheme because there are a lot fewer names, and the naming conventions are a lot more consistent. [...] > > I remember looking at list functions and not > > finding what I needed because it was listed under sequence for example. > > Similarly the coding teckniques are different than in C. > hopefully scheme won't send me in the wrong direction. It will definitely send you in the right direction for learning Scheme. A lot of lessons you learn will be easily applicable to Common Lisp, though some Schemers fall in love with the purity of the language and come to hate the big ball o' mud that is Common Lisp. Cheers, Pillsy
From: Tim X on 12 Jan 2010 13:39
John Thingstad <jpthing(a)online.no> writes: > > Lisp is different. All names for common things are different. So > assosiative transfer works rather poorly. It doesn't help that it if very > difficult to find things in the hyperspec in you don't know where to look > or what the name is . I remember looking at list functions and not > finding what I needed because it was listed under sequence for example. This would be possibly the most frustrating thing I encountered when first learning CL. Most of the time, I was fairly certain what I was looking for was part of the language, but the terminology was so alien, finding it in the hyperspec was very difficult. Resources like the permuted index and lispdoc were very useful, as were finding books with good cross-referenced indexes etc. The hyperspec itself took a bit of getting use to. I found, after reading some introductory material, it was quite useful to lookup what the yperspec had to say about that function/variable and now find I'm a lot more comfortable with the hyperspec (though, at times, it will take considerable effort and a bit of playing around at the repl before I really understand some of the more subtle points) > Similarly the coding teckniques are different than in C. True, but I haven't found this too hard. The difference in style and development approach seems to fit better with my thinking - in fact, the biggest impact has been back the other way - My C coding (and other languages) have definitely been affected by my lisp adventures/experiences. I've learnt a lot and quite enjoyed reading others lisp code and frequently see small idioms etc that I like and often adopt. I actually find, in general, CL code easier to read than many other languages. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au |