Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languagesfor real world programming ?
Next: A small backquote logjam
From: Eli Barzilay on 13 Jun 2010 03:54 Štěpán Němec <stepnem(a)gmail.com> writes: > Eli Barzilay <eli(a)barzilay.org> writes: > > [Just to clarify, my "hard to believe" was only related to the "nobody > felt the need" part.] > >>> I use the GUI only for the debugger and macro stepper. I would >>> _love_ to have that functionality available in a regular REPL (OTOH, >>> especially the macro stepper uses a lot of "eye-candyish" features, >>> so it is a bit hard to imagine in some kind of text-only interface). >> >> Like I said -- the debugger is based on mztake, a project that made a >> scriptable event-based debugger. You can still get the code for that >> at http://www.cs.brown.edu/research/plt/software/mztake/, or you can >> start with the current debugger -- the important piece of code is >> "collects/gui-debugger/annotator.rkt" which instruments code to be >> debugged; and "debug-tool.rkt" is where the gui front end lives. >> You'll see that most of the hard work is done in the latter, since the >> interface is in general more difficult than the core debugging >> facility. You can choose some completely text-based interface, or >> some Emacs interface: the core annotator is practically all there in >> that "annotator.rkt" file. >> >> So -- here's the ball. Will you pick it up now? > > I don't think so. .... and therewego: an example of "nobody felt the need" to the point of doing something about it. >> As for the macro stepper -- well, that one already has a textual >> interface (see section 3 of the macro debugger manual at: >> http://docs.racket-lang.org/macro-debugger/). In fact, it is one of a >> few tools that my interactive hack uses. That's a bunch of hacks that >> make it easier (for me, at least) to do my work -- see it at >> http://barzilay.org/hacks.html. It doesn't have any fancy interface >> to stepping through macro expansion -- basically just dumps the steps >> out, and it could certainly use more improvements. If you're serious >> about making this work, I'll be happy to dump my thing on github to >> make it more easily tweakable, and I'll be happy to provide the right >> pointers. > > Are you speaking about interactive.ss? I discovered that a week or so > ago, but the command list produced by `,help' doesn't suggest any macro > stepper features? Use ",help stx". >> So we now have a second ball on the ground. Will you pick this one up >> too? > > Thank you (and Sam) for the pointers. > > I don't think my very limited abilities would suffice for me to get > the projects you suggest done in any reasonable time (or at all). So > maybe the problem is not that "nobody felt the need", but that most > of those who would benefit are rookies like me -- if we take your > example, you say you use Emacs most of the time, so I'm guessing you > don't really miss the debugging functionality (or at least the part > not available outside DrRacket), and that this might be true for > most of those for whom it would be actually rather easy to implement > these features (given some spare time)? That's possible -- but I generally was trying to avoid such guesswork. My point was that nobody felt enough need to actually do something about it, which is a plain fact -- whether this is because the need/investment ratio is usually <1 or whatever other reason might have caused it is speculation. What certainly is not real is some evil conspiracy to deprive people of debugging tools. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 14 Jun 2010 14:55
"Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.ylikoski(a)gmail.com> writes: > 12.6.2010 22:54, Pascal J. Bourguignon kirjoitti: >> bolega<gnuist006(a)gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> [PAIP] >>> >>> Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth >>> pursuing as a text ? >> >> Yes. >> > > I agree with his criticism that the book is "old", mine stems from the > year 1992. That's not "old". An old book is one that is falling in powder when you're reading it. Eg. the Quran manuscripts are "old". But any book since Gutenberg's invention is not old. For a book, that is. > I bought and studied the Russell-Norvig books on "Artificial > Intelligence: A Modern Approach", ie. the 1th, 2nd (and in the future > the 3rd edition), in order to learn modern AI theory. They have > discontinued the 3rd edition but I succeeded in ordering a copy > anyway. I have read the 1st and the 2nd editions, but I have not yet > received by mail the 3rd edition. > > But I only got the PAIP book to learn Common LISP, not in order to > study modern AI. This is why I'm discussing this in the > new:comp.lang.LISP newsgroup. > > Any good modern LISP textbooks out there? > > Can anyone point to me any other good modern textbooks on AI than the > 3rd edition of the Russell-Norvig book? (Which is reputable.) If we said it is the last AI book written using Lisp, would that make it worth reading? There's nothing newer in AI! :-) -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ |