f



To LISP or not to LISP?

I know there have always been tons of posts on game AI boards asking about
LISP, what it is, and if it's used in commercial games.

Given that LISP is used in few commercial games, is it worth becoming fluent
in anyway?

I am considering persuing it for two reasons:

A.) It is used in academic papers. Being fluent in LISP allows a person to
stay on top of the latest developments in AI.

B.) It can be embedded into game engines. I heard that Halo uses an embedded
LISP-like language for AI. Could embedded LISP-style languages benificial in
the long run?

I've been reading through LISP by Winston & Horn in my free time for the
past year, and I have to say that while I'm familiar with many of LISP's
features, when it comes to coding in LISP, I have the speed and
effectiveness of a slug.

What's with this language? There are too many parentheses and stuff. I
really like the transparency of lists in LISP, and have researched the
benefits of functional programming, but I'm still not convinced that I can
code anything in LISP with more ease than I could in C++.

Should I persue LISP until I am fluent in it? Any advice?
0
kevinclancy_
6/11/2004 7:56:08 PM
comp.ai.games 850 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

5 Replies
2032 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 21

Kevin Clancy wrote:
> I know there have always been tons of posts on game AI boards asking about
> LISP, what it is, and if it's used in commercial games.
> 
> Given that LISP is used in few commercial games, is it worth becoming fluent
> in anyway?
> 
> I am considering persuing it for two reasons:
> 
> A.) It is used in academic papers. Being fluent in LISP allows a person to
> stay on top of the latest developments in AI.

Which papers?  I've seen diminishing use of lisp in AI research for at 
least the past 10-15 years.  Even in academia, but especially outside. 
See below.

> 
> B.) It can be embedded into game engines. I heard that Halo uses an embedded
> LISP-like language for AI. Could embedded LISP-style languages benificial in
> the long run?

It's likely that the reason for using a lisp syntax to extend Halo is 
that list-based languages (like lisp) are really easy to implement 
(parse).  It's a lot harder to build a compiler/interpreter for 
languages like C or fortran, so lisp may have been selected by the game 
builders simply because they wanted to do less work.

> 
> I've been reading through LISP by Winston & Horn in my free time for the
> past year, and I have to say that while I'm familiar with many of LISP's
> features, when it comes to coding in LISP, I have the speed and
> effectiveness of a slug.

If you want to learn lisp, put down that book and pick up Brian Harvey's 
and Peter Norvig's.  IMHO, they're far superior.

> 
> What's with this language? There are too many parentheses and stuff. I
> really like the transparency of lists in LISP, and have researched the
> benefits of functional programming, but I'm still not convinced that I can
> code anything in LISP with more ease than I could in C++.
> 
> Should I persue LISP until I am fluent in it? Any advice?

First of all, I don't work in games or AI, but I think I have a clue 
about the current state of academic AI.

Lisp has always been most appropriate for certain kinds of tasks, in 
particular, the rapid development of symbol manipulators (like predicate 
logic, planning, or truth management systems).  Unfortunately, AI has 
become increasingly less symbolic in the past 15 years and more 
statistical, decision-theoretic, and machine-learning oriented.  That is 
to say, AI today is less like cognitive science (conceptual) and more 
like applied math or operations research (numeric).

Therefore, in the past 20 years since the heyday of lisp, an increasing 
amount of AI has been implemented in C, C++, and Java.  This is 
especially in evidence when you look at the various AI tools in the 
public domain.  NNs, GAs, expert systems, POMDPs, CBR, Bayesian, machine 
learning, fuzzy systems, etc, are all based on technology that is well 
understood, that doesn't benefit from the traditional strengths of lisp 
(concise powerful syntax and dynamically reconfigurable data and 
functions).  So these tools are almost all implemented *without* using 
lisp.  Even lisp's strengths are now being addressed by languages like 
Java, and web infrastructure like XML and C/C++/Java-based interpreters 
of syntactic/semantic tags embedded in knowledge sets.

What's more, it's always seemed absurd to me to think that any one 
programming language could best encompass an entire field of endeavor, 
especially one as broad and multifaceted as AI.  Does it really make 
sense that a single type of hammer or nail is ideal to build every style 
of house?  I always imagined it was more likely that a single language 
might exist to serve all the needs of business than a single language 
could serve all of AI.  And since no single language has subsumed 
business, it makes no sense to me for AI practitioners to persist in a 
wholehearted defense of lisp.

Personally, I'd suggest that you spend your time learning AI techniques 
instead of AI programming languages.  You'll be a lot more productive 
with knowledge of AI techniques than obsolescent AI syntaxes.

     Randy

-- 
Randy Crawford   http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rand   rand AT rice DOT edu
0
Randy
6/13/2004 11:19:46 PM

By design there is a fundamental difference between LISP and Functional 
or Object Oriented programming.  LISP is a practical implementation of 
lambda calculus, which inherently encompasses pattern matching.  This 
makes LISP an excellent choice if you want to do  planning or decision 
making based on a (symbolic) ruleset.

I posture that LISP doesn't bring home all the tools needed to build 
efficient AI algorithms, and that it is generally better to study the 
techniques rather than the languages.  But it's also worthwhile to find 
out exactly why LISP exists, and how it differes from traditional OO 
languages.  In that sense, take a look at Ruby, which allows for 
extension/modification of the function space (even at run-time).

Working on our latest project, I've been turning in circles for a while 
trying to 'get C++ to allow for object extension without inheritance', 
or use an 'interface approach to re-interpret and process your objct 
data differently' depending on state changes.  Until I realised that I 
was trying to implement lambda calculus.  So I think there is still room 
for LISP and similar derivatives in this world.

Cheers,
..ignace


Randy wrote:
> Kevin Clancy wrote:
> 
>> I know there have always been tons of posts on game AI boards asking 
>> about
>> LISP, what it is, and if it's used in commercial games.
>>
>> Given that LISP is used in few commercial games, is it worth becoming 
>> fluent
>> in anyway?
>>
>> I am considering persuing it for two reasons:
>>
>> A.) It is used in academic papers. Being fluent in LISP allows a 
>> person to
>> stay on top of the latest developments in AI.
> 
> 
> Which papers?  I've seen diminishing use of lisp in AI research for at 
> least the past 10-15 years.  Even in academia, but especially outside. 
> See below.
> 
>>
>> B.) It can be embedded into game engines. I heard that Halo uses an 
>> embedded
>> LISP-like language for AI. Could embedded LISP-style languages 
>> benificial in
>> the long run?
> 
> 
> It's likely that the reason for using a lisp syntax to extend Halo is 
> that list-based languages (like lisp) are really easy to implement 
> (parse).  It's a lot harder to build a compiler/interpreter for 
> languages like C or fortran, so lisp may have been selected by the game 
> builders simply because they wanted to do less work.
> 
>>
>> I've been reading through LISP by Winston & Horn in my free time for the
>> past year, and I have to say that while I'm familiar with many of LISP's
>> features, when it comes to coding in LISP, I have the speed and
>> effectiveness of a slug.
> 
> 
> If you want to learn lisp, put down that book and pick up Brian Harvey's 
> and Peter Norvig's.  IMHO, they're far superior.
> 
>>
>> What's with this language? There are too many parentheses and stuff. I
>> really like the transparency of lists in LISP, and have researched the
>> benefits of functional programming, but I'm still not convinced that I 
>> can
>> code anything in LISP with more ease than I could in C++.
>>
>> Should I persue LISP until I am fluent in it? Any advice?
> 
> 
> First of all, I don't work in games or AI, but I think I have a clue 
> about the current state of academic AI.
> 
> Lisp has always been most appropriate for certain kinds of tasks, in 
> particular, the rapid development of symbol manipulators (like predicate 
> logic, planning, or truth management systems).  Unfortunately, AI has 
> become increasingly less symbolic in the past 15 years and more 
> statistical, decision-theoretic, and machine-learning oriented.  That is 
> to say, AI today is less like cognitive science (conceptual) and more 
> like applied math or operations research (numeric).
> 
> Therefore, in the past 20 years since the heyday of lisp, an increasing 
> amount of AI has been implemented in C, C++, and Java.  This is 
> especially in evidence when you look at the various AI tools in the 
> public domain.  NNs, GAs, expert systems, POMDPs, CBR, Bayesian, machine 
> learning, fuzzy systems, etc, are all based on technology that is well 
> understood, that doesn't benefit from the traditional strengths of lisp 
> (concise powerful syntax and dynamically reconfigurable data and 
> functions).  So these tools are almost all implemented *without* using 
> lisp.  Even lisp's strengths are now being addressed by languages like 
> Java, and web infrastructure like XML and C/C++/Java-based interpreters 
> of syntactic/semantic tags embedded in knowledge sets.
> 
> What's more, it's always seemed absurd to me to think that any one 
> programming language could best encompass an entire field of endeavor, 
> especially one as broad and multifaceted as AI.  Does it really make 
> sense that a single type of hammer or nail is ideal to build every style 
> of house?  I always imagined it was more likely that a single language 
> might exist to serve all the needs of business than a single language 
> could serve all of AI.  And since no single language has subsumed 
> business, it makes no sense to me for AI practitioners to persist in a 
> wholehearted defense of lisp.
> 
> Personally, I'd suggest that you spend your time learning AI techniques 
> instead of AI programming languages.  You'll be a lot more productive 
> with knowledge of AI techniques than obsolescent AI syntaxes.
> 
>     Randy
> 
0
Ignace
7/18/2004 3:58:57 PM
Ignace Saenen wrote:

> 
> 
> By design there is a fundamental difference between LISP and Functional 
> or Object Oriented programming.  LISP is a practical implementation of 
> lambda calculus, which inherently encompasses pattern matching.  This 
> makes LISP an excellent choice if you want to do  planning or decision 
> making based on a (symbolic) ruleset.
> 
> I posture that LISP doesn't bring home all the tools needed to build 

Ah.. please make that: "I agree with the posture that.. " :)

> efficient AI algorithms, and that it is generally better to study the 
> techniques rather than the languages.  But it's also worthwhile to find 
> out exactly why LISP exists, and how it differes from traditional OO 
> languages.  In that sense, take a look at Ruby, which allows for 
> extension/modification of the function space (even at run-time).
> 
> Working on our latest project, I've been turning in circles for a while 
> trying to 'get C++ to allow for object extension without inheritance', 
> or use an 'interface approach to re-interpret and process your objct 
> data differently' depending on state changes.  Until I realised that I 
> was trying to implement lambda calculus.  So I think there is still room 
> for LISP and similar derivatives in this world.
> 
> Cheers,
> .ignace
> 
> 
> Randy wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Clancy wrote:
>>
>>> I know there have always been tons of posts on game AI boards asking 
>>> about
>>> LISP, what it is, and if it's used in commercial games.
>>>
>>> Given that LISP is used in few commercial games, is it worth becoming 
>>> fluent
>>> in anyway?
>>>
>>> I am considering persuing it for two reasons:
>>>
>>> A.) It is used in academic papers. Being fluent in LISP allows a 
>>> person to
>>> stay on top of the latest developments in AI.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which papers?  I've seen diminishing use of lisp in AI research for at 
>> least the past 10-15 years.  Even in academia, but especially outside. 
>> See below.
>>
>>>
>>> B.) It can be embedded into game engines. I heard that Halo uses an 
>>> embedded
>>> LISP-like language for AI. Could embedded LISP-style languages 
>>> benificial in
>>> the long run?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's likely that the reason for using a lisp syntax to extend Halo is 
>> that list-based languages (like lisp) are really easy to implement 
>> (parse).  It's a lot harder to build a compiler/interpreter for 
>> languages like C or fortran, so lisp may have been selected by the 
>> game builders simply because they wanted to do less work.
>>
>>>
>>> I've been reading through LISP by Winston & Horn in my free time for the
>>> past year, and I have to say that while I'm familiar with many of LISP's
>>> features, when it comes to coding in LISP, I have the speed and
>>> effectiveness of a slug.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want to learn lisp, put down that book and pick up Brian 
>> Harvey's and Peter Norvig's.  IMHO, they're far superior.
>>
>>>
>>> What's with this language? There are too many parentheses and stuff. I
>>> really like the transparency of lists in LISP, and have researched the
>>> benefits of functional programming, but I'm still not convinced that 
>>> I can
>>> code anything in LISP with more ease than I could in C++.
>>>
>>> Should I persue LISP until I am fluent in it? Any advice?
>>
>>
>>
>> First of all, I don't work in games or AI, but I think I have a clue 
>> about the current state of academic AI.
>>
>> Lisp has always been most appropriate for certain kinds of tasks, in 
>> particular, the rapid development of symbol manipulators (like 
>> predicate logic, planning, or truth management systems).  
>> Unfortunately, AI has become increasingly less symbolic in the past 15 
>> years and more statistical, decision-theoretic, and machine-learning 
>> oriented.  That is to say, AI today is less like cognitive science 
>> (conceptual) and more like applied math or operations research (numeric).
>>
>> Therefore, in the past 20 years since the heyday of lisp, an 
>> increasing amount of AI has been implemented in C, C++, and Java.  
>> This is especially in evidence when you look at the various AI tools 
>> in the public domain.  NNs, GAs, expert systems, POMDPs, CBR, 
>> Bayesian, machine learning, fuzzy systems, etc, are all based on 
>> technology that is well understood, that doesn't benefit from the 
>> traditional strengths of lisp (concise powerful syntax and dynamically 
>> reconfigurable data and functions).  So these tools are almost all 
>> implemented *without* using lisp.  Even lisp's strengths are now being 
>> addressed by languages like Java, and web infrastructure like XML and 
>> C/C++/Java-based interpreters of syntactic/semantic tags embedded in 
>> knowledge sets.
>>
>> What's more, it's always seemed absurd to me to think that any one 
>> programming language could best encompass an entire field of endeavor, 
>> especially one as broad and multifaceted as AI.  Does it really make 
>> sense that a single type of hammer or nail is ideal to build every 
>> style of house?  I always imagined it was more likely that a single 
>> language might exist to serve all the needs of business than a single 
>> language could serve all of AI.  And since no single language has 
>> subsumed business, it makes no sense to me for AI practitioners to 
>> persist in a wholehearted defense of lisp.
>>
>> Personally, I'd suggest that you spend your time learning AI 
>> techniques instead of AI programming languages.  You'll be a lot more 
>> productive with knowledge of AI techniques than obsolescent AI syntaxes.
>>
>>     Randy
>>
0
Ignace
7/18/2004 4:02:28 PM
How is the application going to interact with other applications
and the environment? Interface code could take a lot of time.
From personal experience, we had to re-write a whole LISP
reasoning system in Java because of Interface issues (time takes
to translate data structure between LISP and Java). However,
XML was not investigated as a solution.

---

"Ignace Saenen" <ignace.saeNOSPAMnen@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:40FA9E41.3040400@writeme.com...
>
>
> By design there is a fundamental difference between LISP and Functional
> or Object Oriented programming.  LISP is a practical implementation of
> lambda calculus, which inherently encompasses pattern matching.  This
> makes LISP an excellent choice if you want to do  planning or decision
> making based on a (symbolic) ruleset.
>
> I posture that LISP doesn't bring home all the tools needed to build
> efficient AI algorithms, and that it is generally better to study the
> techniques rather than the languages.  But it's also worthwhile to find
> out exactly why LISP exists, and how it differes from traditional OO
> languages.  In that sense, take a look at Ruby, which allows for
> extension/modification of the function space (even at run-time).
>
> Working on our latest project, I've been turning in circles for a while
> trying to 'get C++ to allow for object extension without inheritance',
> or use an 'interface approach to re-interpret and process your objct
> data differently' depending on state changes.  Until I realised that I
> was trying to implement lambda calculus.  So I think there is still room
> for LISP and similar derivatives in this world.
>
> Cheers,
> .ignace
>
>
> Randy wrote:
> > Kevin Clancy wrote:
> >
> >> I know there have always been tons of posts on game AI boards asking
> >> about
> >> LISP, what it is, and if it's used in commercial games.
> >>
> >> Given that LISP is used in few commercial games, is it worth becoming
> >> fluent
> >> in anyway?
> >>
> >> I am considering persuing it for two reasons:
> >>
> >> A.) It is used in academic papers. Being fluent in LISP allows a
> >> person to
> >> stay on top of the latest developments in AI.
> >
> >
> > Which papers?  I've seen diminishing use of lisp in AI research for at
> > least the past 10-15 years.  Even in academia, but especially outside.
> > See below.
> >
> >>
> >> B.) It can be embedded into game engines. I heard that Halo uses an
> >> embedded
> >> LISP-like language for AI. Could embedded LISP-style languages
> >> benificial in
> >> the long run?
> >
> >
> > It's likely that the reason for using a lisp syntax to extend Halo is
> > that list-based languages (like lisp) are really easy to implement
> > (parse).  It's a lot harder to build a compiler/interpreter for
> > languages like C or fortran, so lisp may have been selected by the game
> > builders simply because they wanted to do less work.
> >
> >>
> >> I've been reading through LISP by Winston & Horn in my free time for
the
> >> past year, and I have to say that while I'm familiar with many of
LISP's
> >> features, when it comes to coding in LISP, I have the speed and
> >> effectiveness of a slug.
> >
> >
> > If you want to learn lisp, put down that book and pick up Brian Harvey's
> > and Peter Norvig's.  IMHO, they're far superior.
> >
> >>
> >> What's with this language? There are too many parentheses and stuff. I
> >> really like the transparency of lists in LISP, and have researched the
> >> benefits of functional programming, but I'm still not convinced that I
> >> can
> >> code anything in LISP with more ease than I could in C++.
> >>
> >> Should I persue LISP until I am fluent in it? Any advice?
> >
> >
> > First of all, I don't work in games or AI, but I think I have a clue
> > about the current state of academic AI.
> >
> > Lisp has always been most appropriate for certain kinds of tasks, in
> > particular, the rapid development of symbol manipulators (like predicate
> > logic, planning, or truth management systems).  Unfortunately, AI has
> > become increasingly less symbolic in the past 15 years and more
> > statistical, decision-theoretic, and machine-learning oriented.  That is
> > to say, AI today is less like cognitive science (conceptual) and more
> > like applied math or operations research (numeric).
> >
> > Therefore, in the past 20 years since the heyday of lisp, an increasing
> > amount of AI has been implemented in C, C++, and Java.  This is
> > especially in evidence when you look at the various AI tools in the
> > public domain.  NNs, GAs, expert systems, POMDPs, CBR, Bayesian, machine
> > learning, fuzzy systems, etc, are all based on technology that is well
> > understood, that doesn't benefit from the traditional strengths of lisp
> > (concise powerful syntax and dynamically reconfigurable data and
> > functions).  So these tools are almost all implemented *without* using
> > lisp.  Even lisp's strengths are now being addressed by languages like
> > Java, and web infrastructure like XML and C/C++/Java-based interpreters
> > of syntactic/semantic tags embedded in knowledge sets.
> >
> > What's more, it's always seemed absurd to me to think that any one
> > programming language could best encompass an entire field of endeavor,
> > especially one as broad and multifaceted as AI.  Does it really make
> > sense that a single type of hammer or nail is ideal to build every style
> > of house?  I always imagined it was more likely that a single language
> > might exist to serve all the needs of business than a single language
> > could serve all of AI.  And since no single language has subsumed
> > business, it makes no sense to me for AI practitioners to persist in a
> > wholehearted defense of lisp.
> >
> > Personally, I'd suggest that you spend your time learning AI techniques
> > instead of AI programming languages.  You'll be a lot more productive
> > with knowledge of AI techniques than obsolescent AI syntaxes.
> >
> >     Randy
> >


0
Allen
7/29/2004 3:15:49 PM
Ignace Saenen <ignace.saeNOSPAMnen@writeme.com> writes:

> By design there is a fundamental difference between LISP and
> Functional or Object Oriented programming. LISP is a practical
> implementation of lambda calculus, which inherently encompasses
> pattern matching.

http://www.lispworks.com/products/myths_and_legends.html
0
bojohan
8/2/2004 11:34:12 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

why Common Lisp is not a lisp
How about, when trying to decide "what is lisp" or to apply "lispp" to some _thing_, we just go very low level and somewhat retro and mostly informal? As a straw-man: a lisp is any language implementation which includes a run time system with some recognizably lispish types (cons pairs, numbers, symbols) having their familiar properties (latent typing, gc-based memory management), and implemented in a recognizably traditional way (or a brilliant new way, worthy of being added to the design space). In the language implemented, programs are expressed in s-exp syntax and th...

Which lisp for a (lisp) novice?
I'd like to learn lisp but I'm confused with the many variants I'm finding. What would you recommend for an experienced programmer in other languages (mainly C and perl), wanting to learn lisp? Should be a well documented lisp and working in Mac OS and main UNIXes (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, ...) I've found and enjoyed the "Practical Common Lisp" book, mainly because it starts with realistic examples, not the car/cdr/lists I had found in the past that lead me to the wrong conclusion that lisp was "only" good at processing abstract lists and could do nothin...

I wish there was a livejournal in lisp. A meetup.com a lisp craigslist. A lisp drudgereport. A lisp forum like this. so I had more things to point at and say hey that is lisp powered.. may
I wish there was a livejournal in lisp. A meetup.com a lisp craigslist. A lisp drudgereport. A lisp forum like this. so I had more things to point at and say hey that is lisp powered.. maybe a lisp cpan with vote up your favorite project in various categories. ...

lisp web servers, lisp as a shell, lisp using rdbms or not
1 I saw the webserver huchentoot seems to want to sit behind apache? araneida seesm to also? Why do they depend on apache? 2 I saw lisp on lines is kinda alpha 3 uncomon web seems cool but also wants to sit behind apache 4 common lisp as a shell is really doible? anyone do this? 5 for large apps is using a rdbms unavoidable? 6 does lisp support or mapping or persisten db conneciton pooling and cacheing? gavino wrote: > 1 I saw the webserver huchentoot seems to want to sit behind apache? > araneida seesm to also? Why do they depend on apache? I can't comment on those particula...

prove lisp hater rong, lisp os dns daabase web gui games etc
where are lisp role playing games like baldurs gate? myth2 soulblighter? where are lisp shells like bash? where are lisp dns server? I saw one with quote "in less lines of code" in description probabyl by some russian guy btu now scrubbed from google? how about lisp replacement for find vmstat? top cron? lisp os be AWESOME gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> wrote: +--------------- | where are lisp shells like bash? +--------------- Where it's always been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh http://www.scsh.net/ -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org> 627 26...

Lisp vs. Common Lisp
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? On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:36:50 -0700, Simon wrote: > I'm...

Why Common Lisp is not a Lisp, continued
[I am picking up this thread again that came to a rest some time ago. I am doing this because it took me relatively long to dig out an article referenced in the posting below.] [I know that such topics are likely to ignite heated discussions between Common Lispniks and Schemers, and some find them practically irrelevant. But, heck, I am interested in these things, and I don't know where else to discuss them. ;) ] > From: Rainer Joswig <joswig@lispmachine.de> > Subject: Re: why Common Lisp is not a lisp > Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:01:48 +0200 > Message-ID: <joswi...

Lisp and AI...
I'm currently developing an RPG game. I've never done AI programming before and I heard (from multiple people) that Lisp was a good place to start. Is this true, and if so what dialect of Lisp should I be using? Brandon Cirella wrote: > I'm currently developing an RPG game. I've never done AI programming > before and I heard (from multiple people) that Lisp was a good place > to start. Is this true, and if so what dialect of Lisp should I be > using? Well, the only "useful" dialects, featurewise, are Scheme and Common Lisp. Scheme has a nicer learning c...

Lisp Metadata Importer in Lisp?
Hi, Does a similar software to John Wiseman's "Lisp Metadata Importer" (http://lemonodor.com/archives/001232.html), written in Lisp, exists? The functionality i'm looking for is: extract from Lisp source code an indexed list of symbols and definitions with individual properties. I am currently in the process of writing one, but i have some problems with (read) and packages and other syntactic sugars (macro- characters). Adrian D. ...

#lisp macros and lisp fanatics
lisp macros and lisp fanatics. [original g+ post https://plus.google.com/b/116187821854023674058/116187821= 854023674058/posts/NewjjhGz4js ] as you may know, i think lisp macro is one of the most idiotic thing in computer science. (and cons, and lisp's IRREGULAR nested syntax) i've wrote perhaps 10 articles on this, and been arguing with lispers for about 10 years. still, once in a while, out of the blue (or, as Naggum says: crawling out of the woodwork), i got some comment or email, criticizing my criticism on lisp. the degree of quality, and what i can guess of the person's ...

On Lisp: the 6 keystones of Lisp
Trying to get a handle on CLOS, I grabbed my Kinkos copy of "On Lisp" and jumped far ahead to the CLOS chapter. In section 25.1, there is a footnote (which in the .pdf version is for page 349) which reads: "Efforts to sum up Lisp in a single phrase are probably doomed to failure, because the power of Lisp arises from the combination of at least five or six features." OK, I can think of 1 extensibility 2 garbage collection 3 functions as a type 4 ... oh-oh out of newbie guesses -- Everyman has three hearts; one to show the world, one to show friends, and one onl...

A tiny Lisp written in Lisp
Hi ! It exists a page that defines a tiny Lisp in Lisp very tersely. I'm pretty sure to have seen it on the list about one year ago. However I'm not able to find it again. I wonder if Pascal Bourguignon exhibited this program, not absolutely sure to remember. Please have you got any idea about this small program ? Thanks. Fabrice Fab <fabricemarchant@free.fr> writes: > Hi ! > > It exists a page that defines a tiny Lisp in Lisp very tersely. > > I'm pretty sure to have seen it on the list about one year ago. > > However I'm not...

lisp
can somebody help me : I want to implement all the common lisp functions in C++. Thanks Sagar X-No-archive: yes "Sagar" <sagjo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ffee5b5.0311051924.42b7de13@posting.google.com... > can somebody help me : > I want to implement all the common lisp functions in C++. Why would you want to do that? I'm sure many elementary Lisp and Scheme interpreters in C are available on the internet. I assume that you mean "common functions in lisp" and not "Common Lisp functions." M. sagjo@hotmail.com (Sagar) wrote: > can ...

lisp
I need a lisp to draw and unfold cone , rectangle to round transition and rectangle to rectangle transition thks Have a look at www.black-cad.de. There is offered a general unfolding program for AutoCAD. Furtehrmore I wrote a routine to create any solid(!) transitions - even from rectangle to round. Regards Jochen "info" <eric@serveur.pdcamb> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:carh88$1191$1@biggoron.nerim.net... > I need a lisp to draw and unfold cone , rectangle to round transition and > rectangle to rectangle transition > thks > > nothing free ? "jochen" <scj.schulz@t-online.de> a �crit dans le message de news: carmrg$p08$06$1@news.t-online.com... > Have a look at www.black-cad.de. > There is offered a general unfolding program for AutoCAD. Furtehrmore I > wrote a routine to create any solid(!) transitions - even from rectangle to > round. > Regards > Jochen > > "info" <eric@serveur.pdcamb> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:carh88$1191$1@biggoron.nerim.net... > > I need a lisp to draw and unfold cone , rectangle to round transition and > > rectangle to rectangle transition > > thks > > > > > > how much free stuff have you contributed?? "info" <eric@serveur.pdcamb> wrote in message news:carnst$14pg$1@biggoron.nerim.net... > nothing free ? > "jochen" <scj.schulz@t-on...

Lisp
I would like to know if Lisp provides List Comprehensions (Zermelo Frankel). Also I am interested in logic programming. Besides LispWorks which provides an embedded prolog is there either a production rule system (I checked out LISA but have not yet installed) or prolog module available for lisp? I did look at Schelog for scheme but would like to know if such is available for lisp. I have downloaded on my Mac OSX SBCL, Clisp, and OpenMCL does anyone have any preference to any of these, or other recommendations? I have PAIP, both of grahams books, winston's book, the steele reference, etc...

Lisp
I'm thinking of doing some of the high-level logic in my program in lisp. Is there an easy way to integrate lisp with C? At the moment my thoughts are moving along the lines of a cheap and cheerful embedded lisp interpreter, written in C. However I am also feeling that it shouldn't be necessary to do this. In article <YM6dndbD_MPVDgLYnZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@bt.com>, Malcolm McLean <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote: >I'm thinking of doing some of the high-level logic in my program in >lisp. > >Is there an easy way to integrate lisp with C? At the moment my >...

lisp
Hi Where do I put downloaded elisp files for them to work? -do I need to run a script or restart emacs afterwards? I run aquamacs on OSXsnow. /Peter Hans-Peter Engelund Kristiansen <hpek@phys.au.dk> writes: > Hi > > Where do I put downloaded elisp files for them to work? -do I need to > run a script or restart emacs afterwards? > I run aquamacs on OSXsnow. > > /Peter I don't use aquamacs anymore, but it respects .emacs IIRC. So if you add a load path to your .emacs it should correctly work as it would in any other variant. You may want to check out the bu...

Cross-lisp questions and my #lisp experience
Summary: I have recently tried to inquire about Common Lisp web frameworks vs Scheme web frameworks on #lisp (I know, it smells like a flamebait, but I really didn't mean that). This post is a summary of my experiences, as well as a restatement of my questions. I originally learned Lisp at age 10 (about 20 years ago), used it in college (about 10 years ago) ant only returned to it about a year ago due to Paul Graham's recent advocacy. Naturally, I figured that the best hacker real estate is in web programming because this is the only way to escape the long shadow of C/C++/Java. I sett...

Lisp libraries
Hi, I had an idea earlier, after reading the various threads and articles on Reddit's switch to Python. The problem, people say, is that Lisp has a library deficiency, so why not call Python's library code from Lisp? A while ago, I needed to use Python as an embedded scripting language, so I found out how to do this. Shelling out to Python was not an option because it's grossly inefficient (and not Windows-friendly), but Python is actually embeddable, in a fashion where it is called from a DLL, and remains resident in memory until Lisp wants to execute Python code (as text)...

How much of a lisp compiler is written in lisp ?
Hello, I would like to have an idea of how much of the lisp compilers you know are written in lisp and how much is written in something else. A similar but probably a bit different question is: how much of the lisp compilers you know involves lisp-level program transformation, and how much actually involves traduction to machine code ? Thanks -- 5th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP 2008, July 7: http://elw.bknr.net/2008/ Didier Verna, didier@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France...

Lisp-1 and Lisp-2 in harmony.
Hey all, In TXR's built-in Lisp dialect, TXR Lisp, which is a Lisp-2, I implemented a way of doing Lisp-1 semantics. The [...] notation is a shorhand for (dwim ...). Dwim stands for "Dispatch, in a way that is intelligent and meaningful". The arguments to dwim are evaluated according to Lisp-1 rules. Any argument which is a symbol is resolved using the innermost binding which is either in the variable or function namespace. If the innermost scope which has a binding for the symbol has a binding in both namespaces, the tie is resolved in favor of the variable binding. (I thou...

Apprendre Lisp (or NOT!) [Weird Lisp History]
Weird Lisp History: In ~1980 a friend of mine and I, in our senior year at Penn, wrote a Lisp book call "Learning Lisp". This was in the time of the Apple II, WAY before CL, and I think before most of the popular lisp textbooks of the time, like Toureztky's [I'm not too sure of all the publication dates of all those, but I think that if they had existed, we wouldn't have felt the need to write one of our own!] We never published it... But wait, this gets more interesting! At about the same time, a mutual friend of ours independently wrote a toy Apple II Lisp interpreter...

Emacs Lisp & Common Lisp
A question: If I try to learn Emacs Lisp while also learning Common Lisp, am I going to damage my understanding of either in some way? "Paul Lange" <plange@gmail.com> writes: > A question: > > If I try to learn Emacs Lisp while also learning Common Lisp, am I > going to damage my understanding of either in some way? Depends whether you can keep them separate in your mind. If you can, observing the differences should be educational. But if not, you'll possibly waste some time discovering the differences the hard way, namely having your programs not work in o...

lisp newbie
Hi all, I am in a programming languages class, and Lisp has me freaked out! I have a basic programming assignment where we make some functions and then make a function EVALUATE that takes in a combination of those functions as a list from a .data text file, and evaluates it. Here's what is tearing me up: how do I program here? I am used to using a text editor (pico) in our Unix system, and making a .c or .cpp or .f or .p file, and then compiling it, and then running it, perhaps with file or command line i/o. I can't figure out how to get this program going! I have my functions wr...

Web resources about - To LISP or not to LISP? - comp.ai.games

Lisp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the programming language, see Lisp (programming language) . For the Internet protocol, see Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol . The "lateral" ...

"Shen: A Sufficiently Advanced Lisp" by Aditya Siram - YouTube
Shen is an hosted Lisp that comes with a full-featured macro system, a Prolog, an optional type system more powerful than Haskell's, and does ...

'I have a lisp': Charlie Sheen's homophobic slur
Charlie Sheen just can't help himself.

the Depreciation Guild, Box Elders, My Teenage Stride, a Lisps musical & more in This Week in Indie
by Bill Pearis The Depreciation Guild For fans of Shoegaze/Dreampop/etc, the Bell House is where you want to be tonight (1/8) for a free show ...

John McCarthy, creator of Lisp programming language, dies
Also a pioneer in artificial intelligence, McCarthy is credited with having coined the term in 1955. John McCarthy, the creator of the Lisp programming ...

Cam'ron had a bad lisp as a kid, so he admired Kool G Rap because he had a lisp, too.
Today is the 10-year anniversary of The Diplomats' landmark debut, Diplomatic Immunity. Although the album was certainly a crew effort,...

Gay pitch, vowels...and lisp?
ON FRIDAY we previewed a post on the stereotypical "gay voice". We'll look at English today, and stereotypes for gay men only. "Gay voice", for ...

How Gay Marriage Is Like Lisp
Paul Graham once wrote an essay about the power of programming languages. Programming languages vary in abstraction, with the most abstract languages ...

Does Charlie Sheen Really Have a Lisp Or Did He Just Use a Homophobic Slur?
Actor and profesional crazy person Charlie Sheen recently hosted the opening of his new bar in the El Ganzo hotel in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. ...

lisp/de.setf.amqp · GitHub
de.setf.amqp - A Common Lisp client library for the Advanced Message Queueing Protocol (AMQP)

Resources last updated: 2/25/2016 3:39:12 PM