The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
titles.  Look at these two:

 - Let over Lambda (own it)
 - Land of Lisp (will try to get it)

What do they have in common?  The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
LOL.

I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?  How can
I tell anyone that I like lisp.  They will go online, see these books,
and just laugh.

Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,

Mirko

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:07:36 -0800, Mirko wrote:

> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> titles.  Look at these two:
> 
>  - Let over Lambda (own it)
>  - Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
> 
> What do they have in common?  The same acronym as `lots of laughs': LOL.
> 
> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?  How can I
> tell anyone that I like lisp.  They will go online, see these books, and
> just laugh.

I don't see what the problem is.  You can always condense something to
an acronym, map that to another arbitrary meaning, then proceed to
find it funny.  For most people the novelty of this wears off around
age 6.

And anyhow, you can always get drunk and free associate, then you
don't need acronyms either.  Eg Land of Lisp is an anagram of ISLAND
FLOP.  Wow, that language must be totally ridiculous.

Cheers,

Tamas

On 12 Dez., 15:07, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> titles. =A0Look at these two:
>
> =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>
> What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> LOL.
>
> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books? =A0How can
> I tell anyone that I like lisp. =A0They will go online, see these books,
> and just laugh.
>
> Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
>
> Mirko

Not sure who originally came up with this:

Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious." Lispnik: "Buddha is
big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."

Mirko wrote:

> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> titles.  Look at these two:
> 
>  - Let over Lambda (own it)
>  - Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
> 
> What do they have in common?  The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> LOL.
> 
> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?  How can
> I tell anyone that I like lisp.  They will go online, see these books,
> and just laugh.
> 
> Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
> 
> Mirko

Are these books about CL (COBOL-LISP)?  If so, then they
aren't about Lisp.  The book _Learning LISP_ (1984) says:

"Lisp is simple."
"Lisp is fun."

One certainly can't honestly say that COBOL-L (CL, Commode Lisp,
Commune Lisp, etc.) is simple or fun.


Guy L. Steele, Jr., July 1989:

I think we may usefully compare the approximate number of pages
in the defining standard or draft standard for several
programming languages:

  Common Lisp   1000 or more
  COBOL          810
  ATLAS          790
  Fortran 77     430
  PL/I           420
  BASIC          360
  ADA            340
  Fortran 8x     300
  C              220
  Pascal         120
  DIBOL           90
  Scheme          50



Let's ban the CL hyenas and keep this newsgroup focused on genuine Lisp.


-- 

On 13 Dez., 09:17, "W. James" <w_a_x_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mirko wrote:
> > The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> > titles. =A0Look at these two:
>
> > =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> > =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>
> > What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> > LOL.
>
> > I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books? =A0How can
> > I tell anyone that I like lisp. =A0They will go online, see these books=
,
> > and just laugh.
>
> > Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
>
> > Mirko
>
> Are these books about CL (COBOL-LISP)? =A0If so, then they
> aren't about Lisp. =A0The book _Learning LISP_ (1984) says:
>
> "Lisp is simple."
> "Lisp is fun."
>
> One certainly can't honestly say that COBOL-L (CL, Commode Lisp,
> Commune Lisp, etc.) is simple or fun.
>
> Guy L. Steele, Jr., July 1989:
>
> I think we may usefully compare the approximate number of pages
> in the defining standard or draft standard for several
> programming languages:
>
> =A0 Common Lisp =A0 1000 or more
> =A0 COBOL =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0810
> =A0 ATLAS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0790
> =A0 Fortran 77 =A0 =A0 430
> =A0 PL/I =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 420
> =A0 BASIC =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0360
> =A0 ADA =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0340
> =A0 Fortran 8x =A0 =A0 300
> =A0 C =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0220
> =A0 Pascal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 120
> =A0 DIBOL =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 90
> =A0 Scheme =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A050
>
> Let's ban the CL hyenas and keep this newsgroup focused on genuine Lisp.
>
> --

  Common Lisp   1000 or more
  COBOL          810
  ATLAS          790
  Fortran 77     430
  PL/I           420
  BASIC          360
  ADA            340
  Fortran 8x     300
  C              220
  Pascal         120
  DIBOL           90
  Scheme          50
  Ruby             0

FTFY

In article 
<f16c75c6-088b-4642-a6a5-1ddd6b524d3a@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
 "joswig@corporate-world.lisp.de" <joswig@lisp.de> wrote:

> On 13 Dez., 09:17, "W. James" <w_a_x_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Mirko wrote:
> > > The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> > > titles. �Look at these two:
> >
> > > �- Let over Lambda (own it)
> > > �- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
> >
> > > What do they have in common? �The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> > > LOL.
> >
> > > I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books? �How can
> > > I tell anyone that I like lisp. �They will go online, see these books,
> > > and just laugh.
> >
> > > Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
> >
> > > Mirko
> >
> > Are these books about CL (COBOL-LISP)? �If so, then they
> > aren't about Lisp. �The book _Learning LISP_ (1984) says:
> >
> > "Lisp is simple."
> > "Lisp is fun."
> >
> > One certainly can't honestly say that COBOL-L (CL, Commode Lisp,
> > Commune Lisp, etc.) is simple or fun.
> >
> > Guy L. Steele, Jr., July 1989:
> >
> > I think we may usefully compare the approximate number of pages
> > in the defining standard or draft standard for several
> > programming languages:
> >
> > � Common Lisp � 1000 or more
> > � COBOL � � � � �810
> > � ATLAS � � � � �790
> > � Fortran 77 � � 430
> > � PL/I � � � � � 420
> > � BASIC � � � � �360
> > � ADA � � � � � �340
> > � Fortran 8x � � 300
> > � C � � � � � � �220
> > � Pascal � � � � 120
> > � DIBOL � � � � � 90
> > � Scheme � � � � �50
> >
> > Let's ban the CL hyenas and keep this newsgroup focused on genuine Lisp.
> >
> > --
> 
>   Common Lisp   1000 or more
>   COBOL          810
>   ATLAS          790
>   Fortran 77     430
>   PL/I           420
>   BASIC          360
>   ADA            340
>   Fortran 8x     300
>   C              220
>   Pascal         120
>   DIBOL           90
>   Scheme          50
>   Ruby             0
> 
> FTFY

Oh wait, there is a Ruby draft standard (so it is still growing).

http://ruby-std.netlab.jp/draft_spec/draft_ruby_spec-20091201.pdf

It has 325 pages.

So Ruby is just a bit behind Ada and in front of Fortran 8x:

� Common Lisp � 1000 or more 
� COBOL � � � � �810 
� ATLAS � � � � �790 
� Fortran 77 � � 430 
� PL/I � � � � � 420 
� BASIC � � � � �360 
� ADA � � � � � �340 
  Ruby           325
� Fortran 8x � � 300 
� C � � � � � � �220 
� Pascal � � � � 120 
� DIBOL � � � � � 90 
� Scheme � � � � �50 

Is it Commune Ruby now?

Rainer Joswig wrote:

> Oh wait, there is a Ruby draft standard (so it is still growing).
> 
> http://ruby-std.netlab.jp/draft_spec/draft_ruby_spec-20091201.pdf
> 
> It has 325 pages.
> 
> So Ruby is just a bit behind Ada and in front of Fortran 8x:
> 
> � Common Lisp � 1000 or more 
> � COBOL � � � � �810 
> � ATLAS � � � � �790 
> � Fortran 77 � � 430 
> � PL/I � � � � � 420 
> � BASIC � � � � �360 
> � ADA � � � � � �340 
>   Ruby           325
> � Fortran 8x � � 300 
> � C � � � � � � �220 
> � Pascal � � � � 120 
> � DIBOL � � � � � 90 
> � Scheme � � � � �50 
> 
> Is it Commune Ruby now?

Interesting list. For Java it is 684 pages:

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/download/langspec-3.0.pdf

But this is just the language. Lisp is much easier compared to Java, but
the Lisp documentation includes all library functions. If all Java standard
classes would be included, it would be a book with many thousands of pages.

The number for C is outdated. The ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard (not public,
you have to buy it) is 550 pages long. And the ISO/IEC 14882 standard for
C++ is 776 pages long, but this will be much more with the upcoming new C++
standard, with garbage collection and lots of Boost extensions.

� Common Lisp � 1000 or more
� COBOL � � � � �810
� ATLAS � � � � �790
� C++ � � � � � �776
  Java           684
� C � � � � � � �550
� Fortran 77 � � 430
� PL/I � � � � � 420
� BASIC � � � � �360
� ADA � � � � � �340
  Ruby           325
� Fortran 8x � � 300
� Pascal � � � � 120
� DIBOL � � � � � 90
� Scheme � � � � �50

-- 
Frank Buss, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

On 13 Dez., 11:40, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> > Oh wait, there is a Ruby draft standard (so it is still growing).
>
> >http://ruby-std.netlab.jp/draft_spec/draft_ruby_spec-20091201.pdf
>
> > It has 325 pages.
>
> > So Ruby is just a bit behind Ada and in front of Fortran 8x:
>
> > Common Lisp 1000 or more
> > COBOL 810
> > ATLAS 790
> > Fortran 77 430
> > PL/I 420
> > BASIC 360
> > ADA 340
> > =A0 Ruby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 325
> > Fortran 8x 300
> > C 220
> > Pascal 120
> > DIBOL 90
> > Scheme 50
>
> > Is it Commune Ruby now?
>
> Interesting list. For Java it is 684 pages:
>
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/download/langspec-3.0.pdf
>
> But this is just the language. Lisp is much easier compared to Java, but
> the Lisp documentation includes all library functions. If all Java standa=
rd
> classes would be included, it would be a book with many thousands of page=
s.
>
> The number for C is outdated. The ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard (not public,
> you have to buy it) is 550 pages long. And the ISO/IEC 14882 standard for
> C++ is 776 pages long, but this will be much more with the upcoming new C=
++
> standard, with garbage collection and lots of Boost extensions.
>
> Common Lisp 1000 or more
> COBOL 810
> ATLAS 790
> C++ 776
> =A0 Java =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 684
> C 550
> Fortran 77 430
> PL/I 420
> BASIC 360
> ADA 340
> =A0 Ruby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 325
> Fortran 8x 300
> Pascal 120
> DIBOL 90
> Scheme 50
>
> --
> Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.dehttp://www.frank-buss.de,http://www.it4-sys=
tems.de

Frank the numbers are twenty years old. The Common Lisp standard has
not changed since then.

I have posted a few weeks ago updated numbers:

C++                   1281
Ada                    765
Fortran                605
C                      538
Haskell 98             256
ECMAScript/Javascript  241
Scheme                 187
Eiffel                 174

The C++ number was from the latest draft that is being worked on

Plus the Common Lisp standard layout is not space saving.
Scheme R6RS for example is two column and per function there is very
little written. Functions are described in a few lines where the
Common Lisp standard uses a page or more.

The posting from Mr. James are getting increasingly insane.

a troll said (among other foolish things!):
>  Common Lisp   1000 or more
>  COBOL          810
>  ATLAS          790
>  Fortran 77     430
>  PL/I           420
>  BASIC          360
>  ADA            340
>  Fortran 8x     300
>  C              220
>  Pascal         120
>  DIBOL           90
>  Scheme          50

On Dec 13, 2:27=A0pm, "jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@lisp.de>
wrote:
<snip>
> the numbers [of the previous post] are twenty years old. The Common Lisp =
standard has
> not changed since then.
>
> I have posted a few weeks ago updated numbers:
>
> C++ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1281
> Ada =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0765
> Fortran =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0605
> C =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0538
> Haskell 98 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 256
> ECMAScript/Javascript =A0241
> Scheme =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 187
> Eiffel =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 174
<snip>
> The posting from Mr. James are getting increasingly insane.

You have to love the symmetry. It'd be best if you all let the poor
thing alone. Or there could be a vote: anyone who reads comp.lang.lisp
for these numbers more than he'd read it for lisp, raise your hand.

Frank Buss wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
> 
>> Oh wait, there is a Ruby draft standard (so it is still growing).
>>
>> http://ruby-std.netlab.jp/draft_spec/draft_ruby_spec-20091201.pdf
>>
>> It has 325 pages.
>>
>> So Ruby is just a bit behind Ada and in front of Fortran 8x:
>>
>>   Common Lisp   1000 or more 
>>   COBOL          810 
>>   ATLAS          790 
>>   Fortran 77     430 
>>   PL/I           420 
>>   BASIC          360 
>>   ADA            340 
>>   Ruby           325
>>   Fortran 8x     300 
>>   C              220 
>>   Pascal         120 
>>   DIBOL           90 
>>   Scheme          50 
>>
>> Is it Commune Ruby now?
> 
> Interesting list. For Java it is 684 pages:
> 
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/download/langspec-3.0.pdf
> 
> But this is just the language. Lisp is much easier compared to Java, but
> the Lisp documentation includes all library functions. If all Java standard
> classes would be included, it would be a book with many thousands of pages.
> 
> The number for C is outdated. The ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard (not public,
> you have to buy it) is 550 pages long. And the ISO/IEC 14882 standard for
> C++ is 776 pages long, but this will be much more with the upcoming new C++
> standard, with garbage collection and lots of Boost extensions.

F*ck, what are we going to do to keep the title? I'd say "add Cells to 
the standard", but that just gets us one blog entry:

   http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/02/cells-manifesto.html

Now showing Google ads for the effect of chemo on white blood cells. 
Erann does good work.

> 
>   Common Lisp   1000 or more
>   COBOL          810
>   ATLAS          790
>   C++            776
>   Java           684
>   C              550
>   Fortran 77     430
>   PL/I           420
>   BASIC          360
>   ADA            340
>   Ruby           325
>   Fortran 8x     300
>   Pascal         120
>   DIBOL           90
>   Scheme          50
> 

Do some homework, will you?!

Revised6 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme
  - Main doc         90
  - Standard Libs    71 (wimps)
  - BS                6
  � Rationale        20 (pwuahahaha. CommuneL has no rationale!)
  --------------------------------------------------------------
              Total 187

   Common Lisp   1000 or more
   COBOL          810
   ATLAS          790
   C++            776
   Java           684
   C              550
   Fortran 77     430
   PL/I           420
   BASIC          360
   ADA            340
   Ruby           325
   Fortran 8x     300
   Scheme         187
   Pascal         120
   DIBOL           90

-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

Mirko <mirko.vukovic@gmail.com> wrote in news:0789e9cd-4369-4a41-8a42-
8567d1af46c3@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> titles.  Look at these two:
> 
>  - Let over Lambda (own it)
>  - Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
> 
> What do they have in common?  The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> LOL.

It's good that you have observed that. though I doubt the authors of the 
book had bad intentions, they probably didn't even realize.

On 2009-12-13, francogrex <franco@grex.org> wrote:
> Mirko <mirko.vukovic@gmail.com> wrote in news:0789e9cd-4369-4a41-8a42-
> 8567d1af46c3@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
>> titles.  Look at these two:
>> 
>>  - Let over Lambda (own it)
>>  - Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>> 
>> What do they have in common?  The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
>> LOL.
>
> It's good that you have observed that. though I doubt the authors of the 
> book had bad intentions, they probably didn't even realize.

See, that's a problem, What sort of Lisper, nay hacker,  doesn't notice
the acronym formed by a book title? :)

francogrex wrote:
> Mirko <mirko.vukovic@gmail.com> wrote in news:0789e9cd-4369-4a41-8a42-
> 8567d1af46c3@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
>> titles.  Look at these two:
>>
>>  - Let over Lambda (own it)
>>  - Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>>
>> What do they have in common?  The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
>> LOL.
> 
> It's good that you have observed that.

For which definition of "good"?

Alb

> From: Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com>
>  - Let over Lambda (own it)
>  - Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
> What do they have in common?  The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> LOL.
> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?

With that kind of logic, how can you ever get a directory listing
on Unix without being the laughing stock?

What's the difference between Lisp and most other languages?
Lisp inserts silly parens!

Maybe it's time to get away from programming languages as primary,
with IDEs as mere user conveniences, and instead develop an IDE
which *is* the true programming system, with any syntax invisible
(unspecified) under the hood? Thus we can build all sorts of binary
trees, or associative arrays, etc., and all sorts of algorithms to
traverse and transform these complicated data objects, without
thinking of them in terms of some named function used to build them
such as "CONS trees". For purpose of exposition, writing journal
papers or books or tutorials about the new IDE, maybe we need some
kind of artist, who is expert at expressing complex ideas without
need for words, to design a true graphic programming representation
for the new IDE. Or maybe traditional publication media are
obsolete for this purpose, and an animated tutorial is best.
Click [here] to view the video/animation that shows how to:
- find the power button on your computer, and use it to turn your
   computer on or off;
- browse the Web to find your input dataset;
- connect our IDE to your dataset and start composing your
   application to process that dataset;
- see the evidence for quantum wormholes as explanation for dark
   energy, and thus very strong evidence for anthropic multi-verse;

On Dec 15, 2:56=A0am, seeWebInst...@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> > From: Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com>
> > =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> > =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
> > What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> > LOL.
> > I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?
>
> With that kind of logic, how can you ever get a directory listing
> on Unix without being the laughing stock?

Can you please explain that one?  Went over my head.

.... Stuff deleted.

This thread made me realize that I should drop `comedian' as career
plan B for now.

Cheers,

Mirko

On Dec 15, 6:48=A0am, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:56=A0am, seeWebInst...@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
> http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:

> > > From: Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com>
[...]
> > > What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> > > LOL.
> > > I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?

> > With that kind of logic, how can you ever get a directory listing
> > on Unix without being the laughing stock?

> Can you please explain that one?

"ls" is clearly an abbreviation for "laughing stock".

Cheers,
Pillsy

On Dec 15, 8:24=A0am, Pillsy <pillsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 6:48=A0am, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 2:56=A0am, seeWebInst...@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,
> >http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
> > > > From: Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com>
> [...]
> > > > What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs=
':
> > > > LOL.
> > > > I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?
> > > With that kind of logic, how can you ever get a directory listing
> > > on Unix without being the laughing stock?
> > Can you please explain that one?
>
> "ls" is clearly an abbreviation for "laughing stock".
>
> Cheers,
> Pillsy

Duh -- thanks

Mirko <mirko.vukovic@gmail.com> writes:

> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books?  How can
> I tell anyone that I like lisp.  They will go online, see these books,
> and just laugh.

With Let over Lambda, at least, anyone who knows lisp and reads the book
will laugh... ok maybe cry...

-- 
Rahul Jain
rjain@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist

Mirko <mirko.vukovic@gmail.com> writes:

> This thread made me realize that I should drop `comedian' as career
> plan B for now.

Didn't stop Kenny. Why should it stop you?

Hi Kenny. :D

-- 
Rahul Jain
rjain@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist

On Dec 12, 6:07=A0am, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> titles. =A0Look at these two:
>
> =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>
> What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> LOL.
>
> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books? =A0How can
> I tell anyone that I like lisp. =A0They will go online, see these books,
> and just laugh.
>
> Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
>
> Mirko

you must be a J2EE user!

On Dec 13, 11:36=A0am, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-12-13, francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
>
> > Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0789e9cd-4369-4a41-8a42-
> > 8567d1af4...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> >> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> >> titles. =A0Look at these two:
>
> >> =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> >> =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>
> >> What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> >> LOL.
>
> > It's good that you have observed that. though I doubt the authors of th=
e
> > book had bad intentions, they probably didn't even realize.
>
> See, that's a problem, What sort of Lisper, nay hacker, =A0doesn't notice
> the acronym formed by a book title? :)

one who is writing cool programs! bam!

On Dec 12, 9:07=A0am, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> titles. =A0Look at these two:
>
> =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>
> What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> LOL.
>
> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books? =A0How can
> I tell anyone that I like lisp. =A0They will go online, see these books,
> and just laugh.

  Well, Lisp is why the people who actually understand Publishling
  invented Holograms and Digital Books, rather than Breakpoints.

  It's why the people who understand engineering invented
  atomic clock watches, rather than double slit experiments.

  It's why the people who understand paper invented
  cd+rw, blue ray, and usb, rather than keyboards.

  It's why the people who understand polynominal time invented
  Home Broadband, XML, mp3, mpeg, Distributed Processing Software,
  and Desktop Publishing, rather than Polynomials.

  It's why the people who understand hardware invented
  self-replicating machines, rather than hardware.

  It's why the people who understand software invented
  PGP rather than Turing Machines

  It's why the people who understand editting invented
  Multiplexed Fiber Optics, rather than editors.

  It's why the people who understand periphals
  invented HDTV and Cyber Batteries rather than periphals.

  It's why the people who understand economics
  invented GPS and Self-Assembling Robots rather than Firmware.

  It's why the people who understand Goedel Numbering
  invented Digital Terrain Mapping and Rapid Prototyping, rather than
GM.

  It's the people who understand Code Debuggers
  invented External Emulators, All-In-One Printers,
  and Data Fusion, rather than Transitors.

  It's why the people who understand energy invented
  The History Channel and Microwave cooling, rather than Philosophy.



>
> Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
>
> Mirko

On 12 Dez., 15:07, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> titles. =A0Look at these two:
>
> =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>
> What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> LOL.
>
> I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books? =A0How can
> I tell anyone that I like lisp. =A0They will go online, see these books,
> and just laugh.
>
> Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
>
> Mirko

Lisp has a number of funny people, not only writing books
with funny titles, but also writing programs making
you laugh...

http://grok-code.com/12/how-to-write-original-jokes-or-have-a-computer-do-i=
t-for-you/
http://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=3Dcom_myblog&show=3DJess-Johnsons=
-Joke-Generator-in-Lisp.html&Itemid=3D29


Earlier I had fixed some problems in the above code and made it
portable.
Get it here:

  http://lispm.dyndns.org/lisp/source/new-jokes.lisp


CL-USER 1 > (load (compile-file "new-jokes.lisp"))
;;; Compiling file new-jokes.lisp ...
;;; Safety =3D 3, Speed =3D 1, Space =3D 1, Float =3D 1, Interruptible =3D =
1
;;; Compilation speed =3D 1, Debug =3D 2, Fixnum safety =3D 3
;;; Source level debugging is on
;;; Source file recording is  on
;;; Cross referencing is on
; (TOP-LEVEL-FORM 0)
; (DEFPARAMETER *DEBUG*)
; (DEFPARAMETER *TEST-KNOW*)
; (DEFPARAMETER *VOCAB*)
; (DEFPARAMETER *LITERAL-LIST*)
; (DEFPARAMETER *PUNCHLINE*)
; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-ART) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-ANIM) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-POS) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-HOMOPHONE) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-RELATION) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-LITERAL) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; (SUBFUNCTION MAKE-WORD-PROP (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; (SUBFUNCTION MAKE-WORD-PROP (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
; GENERATE
; ANIM-MATCH
; ANSWER-JOKE
; ADD-PUNCHLINE
; SUBSTRING-P
; STARTS-WITH
; MAKE-COMPOUND
; MAKE-SUBSTRING-WORD
; IS-POS
; DERIVE-WORDS
; ADD-SUFFIX
; PRINT-JOKE
; ADD-ARTICLE
; IS-VOWEL
; SEED-KNOWLEDGE-TEST
; SEED-KNOWLEDGE
; ADD-RELATION
; ADD-HOMOPHONE
; ADD-WORD
; PRINT-VOCAB
; TEST
;; Processing Cross Reference Information
; Loading fasl file /Users/joswig/Desktop/new-jokes.64xfasl
#P"/Users/joswig/Desktop/new-jokes.64xfasl"

CL-USER 2 > (generate)
WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS JAM WITH A TROUT?
jellyfish

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A BAD COW WITH A CANNED HAT?
banned cat

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A COW WITH A LEMON?
sour milk

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A CRAZY COW WITH A BANNED PARROT?
canned carrot

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A PIG WITH A NINJA?
pork chops

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A CAT WITH A BAND?
mew-sic

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A CAT WITH A TUNE?
mew-sic

....


People have written Lisp programs to generate stories:

http://lispm.dyndns.org/news?ID=3DNEWS-2008-05-26-1

Source (with various bug fixes by me):

  http://lispm.dyndns.org/source/misc/micro-talespin.lisp

From the following story description:

 (joe hungry
    (world (hungry (actor irving) (mode (pos))))
    (joe (like (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (pos))))
    (joe (deceive (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (neg))))
    (joe (like (actor joe) (to irving) (mode (pos))))
    (irving (like (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (pos))))
    (irving (dominate (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (neg))))
    (irving (deceive (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (neg)))))

the following story is generated:

CL-USER 18 > (micro-talespin-demo *story4*)

Once upon a time ...
JOE WAS NEAR THE CAVE.
JOE KNEW THAT JOE WAS NEAR THE CAVE.
IRVING WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
IRVING KNEW THAT IRVING WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
JOE KNEW THAT IRVING WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
THE WATER WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
JOE KNEW THAT THE WATER WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
THE HONEY WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
IRVING KNEW THAT THE HONEY WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
THE WORM WAS NEAR THE GROUND.
JOE KNEW THAT THE WORM WAS NEAR THE GROUND.
IRVING KNEW THAT JOE WAS NEAR THE CAVE.
THE FISH WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
IRVING KNEW THAT THE FISH WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
IRVING WAS HUNGRY.
JOE THOUGHT THAT IRVING LIKED JOE.
JOE THOUGHT THAT IRVING DID NOT DECEIVE JOE.
JOE THOUGHT THAT JOE LIKED IRVING.
IRVING THOUGHT THAT IRVING LIKED JOE.
IRVING THOUGHT THAT IRVING DID NOT DOMINATE JOE.
IRVING THOUGHT THAT IRVING DID NOT DECEIVE JOE.
One day,
JOE WAS HUNGRY.
JOE WANTED NOT TO BE HUNGRY.
JOE WANTED TO HAVE THE HONEY.
JOE WANTED TO KNOW WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
JOE WANTED IRVING TO TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
JOE DECIDED THAT IF JOE WOULD GIVE IRVING THE WORM THEN IRVING MIGHT
TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
JOE WANTED IRVING TO THINK THAT IRVING WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY
WAS IF JOE GAVE IRVING THE WORM.
JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR IRVING.
JOE WENT TO THE OAK-TREE.
JOE WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
JOE ASKED IRVING WHETHER IRVING WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS IF
JOE GAVE IRVING THE WORM.
IRVING TOLD JOE THAT IF JOE WOULD GIVE IRVING THE WORM THEN IRVING
WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
IRVING DECIDED THAT IF JOE WOULD GIVE IRVING THE WORM THEN IRVING
WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
JOE WANTED TO HAVE THE WORM.
JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR THE WORM.
JOE WENT TO THE GROUND.
JOE WAS NEAR THE GROUND.
JOE TOOK THE WORM .
THE WORM WAS NEAR JOE.
JOE HAD THE WORM.
JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR IRVING.
JOE WENT TO THE OAK-TREE.
JOE WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
JOE GAVE IRVING THE WORM.
JOE DID NOT HAVE THE WORM.
THE WORM WAS NEAR IRVING.
IRVING HAD THE WORM.
IRVING TOLD JOE THAT THE HONEY WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR THE HONEY.
JOE WENT TO THE ELM-TREE.
JOE WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
JOE TOOK THE HONEY .
THE HONEY WAS NEAR JOE.
JOE HAD THE HONEY.
JOE ATE THE HONEY.
JOE WAS NOT HUNGRY.
The end.

On Dec 17, 10:37=A0am, "jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@lisp.de>
wrote:
> On 12 Dez., 15:07, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The authors of recent lisp books need to think more about the books'
> > titles. =A0Look at these two:
>
> > =A0- Let over Lambda (own it)
> > =A0- Land of Lisp (will try to get it)
>
> > What do they have in common? =A0The same acronym as `lots of laughs':
> > LOL.
>
> > I mean who will take language seriously thusly titled books? =A0How can
> > I tell anyone that I like lisp. =A0They will go online, see these books=
,
> > and just laugh.
>
> > Nevertheless, congrats to the authors,
>
> > Mirko
>
> Lisp has a number of funny people, not only writing books
> with funny titles, but also writing programs making
> you laugh...
>
> http://grok-code.com/12/how-to-write-original-jokes-or-have-a-compute...h=
ttp://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=3Dcom_myblog&show=3DJess-Johnso...
>
> Earlier I had fixed some problems in the above code and made it
> portable.
> Get it here:
>
> =A0http://lispm.dyndns.org/lisp/source/new-jokes.lisp
>
> CL-USER 1 > (load (compile-file "new-jokes.lisp"))
> ;;; Compiling file new-jokes.lisp ...
> ;;; Safety =3D 3, Speed =3D 1, Space =3D 1, Float =3D 1, Interruptible =
=3D 1
> ;;; Compilation speed =3D 1, Debug =3D 2, Fixnum safety =3D 3
> ;;; Source level debugging is on
> ;;; Source file recording is =A0on
> ;;; Cross referencing is on
> ; (TOP-LEVEL-FORM 0)
> ; (DEFPARAMETER *DEBUG*)
> ; (DEFPARAMETER *TEST-KNOW*)
> ; (DEFPARAMETER *VOCAB*)
> ; (DEFPARAMETER *LITERAL-LIST*)
> ; (DEFPARAMETER *PUNCHLINE*)
> ; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-ART) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-ANIM) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-POS) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-HOMOPHONE) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-RELATION) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; (SUBFUNCTION (DEFSETF WORD-PROP-LITERAL) (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; (SUBFUNCTION MAKE-WORD-PROP (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; (SUBFUNCTION MAKE-WORD-PROP (DEFSTRUCT WORD-PROP))
> ; GENERATE
> ; ANIM-MATCH
> ; ANSWER-JOKE
> ; ADD-PUNCHLINE
> ; SUBSTRING-P
> ; STARTS-WITH
> ; MAKE-COMPOUND
> ; MAKE-SUBSTRING-WORD
> ; IS-POS
> ; DERIVE-WORDS
> ; ADD-SUFFIX
> ; PRINT-JOKE
> ; ADD-ARTICLE
> ; IS-VOWEL
> ; SEED-KNOWLEDGE-TEST
> ; SEED-KNOWLEDGE
> ; ADD-RELATION
> ; ADD-HOMOPHONE
> ; ADD-WORD
> ; PRINT-VOCAB
> ; TEST
> ;; Processing Cross Reference Information
> ; Loading fasl file /Users/joswig/Desktop/new-jokes.64xfasl
> #P"/Users/joswig/Desktop/new-jokes.64xfasl"
>
> CL-USER 2 > (generate)
> WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS JAM WITH A TROUT?
> jellyfish
>
> WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A BAD COW WITH A CANNED HAT?
> banned cat
>
> WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A COW WITH A LEMON?
> sour milk
>
> WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A CRAZY COW WITH A BANNED PARROT?
> canned carrot
>
> WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A PIG WITH A NINJA?
> pork chops
>
> WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A CAT WITH A BAND?
> mew-sic
>
> WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU CROSS A CAT WITH A TUNE?
> mew-sic
>
> ...
>
> People have written Lisp programs to generate stories:
>
> http://lispm.dyndns.org/news?ID=3DNEWS-2008-05-26-1
>
> Source (with various bug fixes by me):
>
> =A0http://lispm.dyndns.org/source/misc/micro-talespin.lisp
>
> From the following story description:
>
> =A0(joe hungry
> =A0 =A0 (world (hungry (actor irving) (mode (pos))))
> =A0 =A0 (joe (like (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (pos))))
> =A0 =A0 (joe (deceive (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (neg))))
> =A0 =A0 (joe (like (actor joe) (to irving) (mode (pos))))
> =A0 =A0 (irving (like (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (pos))))
> =A0 =A0 (irving (dominate (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (neg))))
> =A0 =A0 (irving (deceive (actor irving) (to joe) (mode (neg)))))
>
> the following story is generated:
>
> CL-USER 18 > (micro-talespin-demo *story4*)
>
> Once upon a time ...
> JOE WAS NEAR THE CAVE.
> JOE KNEW THAT JOE WAS NEAR THE CAVE.
> IRVING WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
> IRVING KNEW THAT IRVING WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
> JOE KNEW THAT IRVING WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
> THE WATER WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
> JOE KNEW THAT THE WATER WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
> THE HONEY WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
> IRVING KNEW THAT THE HONEY WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
> THE WORM WAS NEAR THE GROUND.
> JOE KNEW THAT THE WORM WAS NEAR THE GROUND.
> IRVING KNEW THAT JOE WAS NEAR THE CAVE.
> THE FISH WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
> IRVING KNEW THAT THE FISH WAS NEAR THE RIVER.
> IRVING WAS HUNGRY.
> JOE THOUGHT THAT IRVING LIKED JOE.
> JOE THOUGHT THAT IRVING DID NOT DECEIVE JOE.
> JOE THOUGHT THAT JOE LIKED IRVING.
> IRVING THOUGHT THAT IRVING LIKED JOE.
> IRVING THOUGHT THAT IRVING DID NOT DOMINATE JOE.
> IRVING THOUGHT THAT IRVING DID NOT DECEIVE JOE.
> One day,
> JOE WAS HUNGRY.
> JOE WANTED NOT TO BE HUNGRY.
> JOE WANTED TO HAVE THE HONEY.
> JOE WANTED TO KNOW WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
> JOE WANTED IRVING TO TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
> JOE DECIDED THAT IF JOE WOULD GIVE IRVING THE WORM THEN IRVING MIGHT
> TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
> JOE WANTED IRVING TO THINK THAT IRVING WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY
> WAS IF JOE GAVE IRVING THE WORM.
> JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR IRVING.
> JOE WENT TO THE OAK-TREE.
> JOE WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
> JOE ASKED IRVING WHETHER IRVING WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS IF
> JOE GAVE IRVING THE WORM.
> IRVING TOLD JOE THAT IF JOE WOULD GIVE IRVING THE WORM THEN IRVING
> WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
> IRVING DECIDED THAT IF JOE WOULD GIVE IRVING THE WORM THEN IRVING
> WOULD TELL JOE WHERE THE HONEY WAS.
> JOE WANTED TO HAVE THE WORM.
> JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR THE WORM.
> JOE WENT TO THE GROUND.
> JOE WAS NEAR THE GROUND.
> JOE TOOK THE WORM .
> THE WORM WAS NEAR JOE.
> JOE HAD THE WORM.
> JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR IRVING.
> JOE WENT TO THE OAK-TREE.
> JOE WAS NEAR THE OAK-TREE.
> JOE GAVE IRVING THE WORM.
> JOE DID NOT HAVE THE WORM.
> THE WORM WAS NEAR IRVING.
> IRVING HAD THE WORM.
> IRVING TOLD JOE THAT THE HONEY WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
> JOE WANTED TO BE NEAR THE HONEY.
> JOE WENT TO THE ELM-TREE.
> JOE WAS NEAR THE ELM-TREE.
> JOE TOOK THE HONEY .
> THE HONEY WAS NEAR JOE.
> JOE HAD THE HONEY.
> JOE ATE THE HONEY.
> JOE WAS NOT HUNGRY.
> The end.

Wow!  Thanks for sharing this.