Lisp

Book links

p/s: Oh, no need the double post.

Lisp lets you meld with the problem you are solving easily and fluidly, rather than forcing you to fit the problem to the limitations of the programming language.

quote:

---

Original post by bishop_pass
Lisp lets you meld with the problem you are solving easily and fluidly, rather than forcing you to fit the problem to the limitations of the programming language.

---

That sounds like something a Yoga instructor would say...

So does Python

What is so great about Lisp?

I bought "ANSI Common Lisp" by Paul Graham, and so far its really good. The entire thing is about as big as an ANSI C reference book I have, but only about 1/4 of the "ANSI Common Lisp" book is a Language Reference [the rest being an intro to lisp {not just the basic stuff tho]). That alone tells me Lisp is a higher level lanuage.
I really like the infix syntax so far, and "code is data" seems nice. I still have a hard time reading the infix notation for ''long functions'' (say 7+ lines), but I can understand it with a little effort and about 10 seconds a line (about the same time per function it would take to read all the 100 lines it would take to do in C).

----------
Almost typo-ified using Extrarius'' AUTOMATIC Typo Generator, but I decided to be nice =-)

quote:

---

Original post by Extrarius
The entire thing is about as big as an ANSI C reference book I have, but only about 1/4 of the "ANSI Common Lisp" book is a Language Reference [the rest being an intro to lisp {not just the basic stuff tho]). That alone tells me Lisp is a higher level lanuage.

---

Why? If I wrote a book on BF most of the book would be an intro into BF and the language reference would only be a small portion of the book itself.

---

Qui fut tout, et qui ne fut rien
Invader''s Realm

Ok, so maybe not alone =-) but that plus the text I've read so far definitely show it is a higher-level language. It has several example functions(that are practical functions like token parsing, a breadth-first node search, etc) that would take 10+ times as much code to implement in C, and 5+ times as much code to implement in C++ {using the STL}.

From what I've read about other functional language, it seems like Lisp is the most practical and versatile of them all. Some supposedly more 'pure' functional languages (like Haskell) make some thing very difficult, but so far I haven't found much(I don't like the names of some functions) I don't like about Lisp other than the fact that I don't know it yet =-)

----------
Almost typo-ified using Extrarius' AUTOMATIC Typo Generator, but I decided to be nice =-)

[edited by - Extrarius on March 5, 2003 9:05:42 PM]

Extrarius, how come you don''t participate in the other Lisp thread you created? I added a lot of content there (not exactly what you''re looking for, I realize) but the thread is worth discussion.

The thread in question is the one about easy Lisp stuff that is hard in C/C++.

One thing I notice when I''m tinkering with Lisp is this:

1) First I''ll hardcode a subset of the solution just to see how it works. I get instant feedback while doing this.

2) Then, I see how the hardcoded sections can be migrated to a data set, where the code operates on the data. Nothing new here; we do this with most languages.

3) But here''s where it gets interesting. At the third stage, I notice how I can use Lisp to process the data, and build custom functions dynamically from the data. It''s almost as if I''m adopting an object centric paradigm, but my program is doing the final object oriented programming for me.

4) And then it gets more interesting. Following on using principle #3, stated above, I can add more data, either at programming time or interactively at runtime, and then the principle stated in #3 builds new code for me automatically, modifying and adding code at runtime, or progressively building up more over the full development cycle.

Well, I don''t have much to say in response really (and I forgot about the thread and I didn''t see it getting posts =-).
Also, often the subjects that get mentioned are over my head, as I''ve just started learning about academic and higher-level practical computer science. My computer science vocabulary is extremely limited.

I asked a similar quesion over on the AI forum (because lisp is primarily used for AI stuff, i think).

You should go read what they replied. Be warned though, i think near the end they just got mad at me for not knowing lisp enough...


http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=140658

quote:

---

Original post by RedSweater
So does Python

---

No it doesn''t. Python doesn''t allow you to fit new operators into the language, or to evolve grammars to suit the needs of your problem domain.

quote:

---

Original post by The Reindeer Effect
Well, I see alot of arguments about how great/horrible Lisp is. However, most of these posts don''t go too far into details.

---

You''re kidding, right?

quote:

---

Original post by SabreMan
You''re kidding, right?

---

I think he wants some code base to play with. e.g. master examples.

I know I would. I have been reading the lsp files for GCL, but the Tk interaction won''t work. Send is in the tk package; so I am having trouble trying the (send foo bar `baz) you mentioned in another thread.

Are you using another distrobution''s ffi when you talk about "send" and other inter-process communicating functions?

quote:

---

Original post by SabreMan
You''re kidding, right?

---

Why, did I fart and make you giggle? If I was joking around, I would have done it somewhere more appropriate.

Of course that could have been a rhetorical question ...

Is lisp any good for parsing?

Python is excellent I recommend it to all.

It compiles.... ship it!!!

Python doesnt compile unless you count byte compiling...

quote:

---

Original post by flangazor
I know I would. I have been reading the lsp files for GCL, but the Tk interaction won''t work. Send is in the tk package; so I am having trouble trying the (send foo bar `baz) you mentioned in another thread.

Are you using another distrobution''s ffi when you talk about "send" and other inter-process communicating functions?

---

I''m not sure what you''re referring to, you''ll have to jog my memory. For the record, I haven''t used Lisp with Tk, so I probably don''t know the answer to your question.

quote:

---

Original post by RedSweater
Python doesnt compile unless you count byte compiling...

---

I can''t be sure, but I think that was his sig.