Hi Drew,
perhaps the point of a mailing list for professional lisp developers is to act, well ... professional?
Remember one of the points made in original article about the Lisp community: "The community isn’t nearly as blood thirsty as some people might portrait it."
Seems to me you just confirmed what many people appear to worry about. Well done.
Alex
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Drew Crampsie wrote:
On 20 January 2011 08:04, Alexander Repenning ralex@cs.colorado.edu wrote:
Common Lisp has gone STALE. The Common Lisp community preserves Lisp instead of advancing it.
I participated in the creation of this mailing list in part to get away from trolling like this on the other lisp forums. Is there no place on the interwebs safe from such bullshit?
The 21 century computer science world need no more essays explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is (stale).
And i'm not convinced a mailing list for professional lisp developers needs more diatribes explaining how _we_ should 'fix' Common Lisp to make it 'cool' again.
Can we leave this sort of drivel on comp.lang.lisp where i have plonk-ability, and keep this mailing list for "people who already know and use Common Lisp and who don't want to discuss the merits of it or how other languages are worse or better"?
Cheers,
drewc
On 20 January 2011 08:04, Alexander Repenning ralex@cs.colorado.edu wrote:
One point made:
It’s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScript versus Common Lisp I can see a scary performance cross over point in the near future (months). Already, in some of our benchmarks JavaScript running in OS X Chrome is getting very close (10% gap) to Clozure Common Lisp. Why is that? Common Lisp has gone STALE. The Common Lisp community preserves Lisp instead of advancing it. The result: flatline! As far as I can tell non of the exciting JIT compiler technologies developed in the last couple of years have made it into any CL implementation. If you follow this trend you may conclude the right thing to do, if you want to continue to use Lisp, would be to compile it down to JavaScript, yes, JavaScript, not C or direct to binary.
Same thing with IDEs: stale, flatline.. Perhaps with the exception of LispWorks it appears that most Lisp programmers are just fine with Emacs. Well, Emacs was great 35 years ago. Remember the actually innovative IDEs of Lisp on Lisp machines? Is SLIME really the best we can do now? Take Clozure CL. As far as I can tell most people, including some the developers perhaps, are using SLIME too. Start using something new. For instance start using the Cocoa based CCL IDE. Yes, still primitive but with real opportunities to create some fine IDE tools that actually would look OK even to a 21 Century computer science students. Nowadays, even browser (e.g., Safari and FireFox) have debugging tools built in that make SLIME look like last century technology that belongs to a computer museum.
The Lisp community is not only small but also fragmented. The 21 century computer science world need no more essays explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is (stale). It is time to leap into action and to IMPLEMENT stuff that is not just interesting to the Common Lisp community but to computer science in general. Play with Clozure Common Lisp the IDE version (Mac and Window). Do not just get frustrated and switch back to Slime but ask yourself "what can YOU do for Common Lisp (or more specifically CCL) to make it cool again"
best, Alex
On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
This is a very nice essay to help people get over their initial problems with Lisp:
http://pavelpenev.posterous.com/learning-lisp-the-bump-free-way
Prof. Alexander Repenning
University of Colorado Computer Science Department Boulder, CO 80309-430
vCard: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/AlexanderRepenning.vcf
pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
Prof. Alexander Repenning
University of Colorado Computer Science Department Boulder, CO 80309-430
vCard: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/AlexanderRepenning.vcf
As one of the list moderators, might I interject two words here: "please" and "stop"?
I agree with Drew's sentiments, if not completely with his tone. But if his tone offends you or anyone else, please reply to him off-list.
Let's keep this list very focused. Thanks!
--Scott
On Jan 20, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Alexander Repenning wrote:
Hi Drew,
perhaps the point of a mailing list for professional lisp developers is to act, well ... professional?
Remember one of the points made in original article about the Lisp community: "The community isn’t nearly as blood thirsty as some people might portrait it."
Seems to me you just confirmed what many people appear to worry about. Well done.
Alex
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Drew Crampsie wrote:
On 20 January 2011 08:04, Alexander Repenning ralex@cs.colorado.edu wrote:
Common Lisp has gone STALE. The Common Lisp community preserves Lisp instead of advancing it.
I participated in the creation of this mailing list in part to get away from trolling like this on the other lisp forums. Is there no place on the interwebs safe from such bullshit?
The 21 century computer science world need no more essays explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is (stale).
And i'm not convinced a mailing list for professional lisp developers needs more diatribes explaining how _we_ should 'fix' Common Lisp to make it 'cool' again.
Can we leave this sort of drivel on comp.lang.lisp where i have plonk-ability, and keep this mailing list for "people who already know and use Common Lisp and who don't want to discuss the merits of it or how other languages are worse or better"?
Cheers,
drewc
On 20 January 2011 08:04, Alexander Repenning ralex@cs.colorado.edu wrote:
One point made:
It’s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScript versus Common Lisp I can see a scary performance cross over point in the near future (months). Already, in some of our benchmarks JavaScript running in OS X Chrome is getting very close (10% gap) to Clozure Common Lisp. Why is that? Common Lisp has gone STALE. The Common Lisp community preserves Lisp instead of advancing it. The result: flatline! As far as I can tell non of the exciting JIT compiler technologies developed in the last couple of years have made it into any CL implementation. If you follow this trend you may conclude the right thing to do, if you want to continue to use Lisp, would be to compile it down to JavaScript, yes, JavaScript, not C or direct to binary.
Same thing with IDEs: stale, flatline.. Perhaps with the exception of LispWorks it appears that most Lisp programmers are just fine with Emacs. Well, Emacs was great 35 years ago. Remember the actually innovative IDEs of Lisp on Lisp machines? Is SLIME really the best we can do now? Take Clozure CL. As far as I can tell most people, including some the developers perhaps, are using SLIME too. Start using something new. For instance start using the Cocoa based CCL IDE. Yes, still primitive but with real opportunities to create some fine IDE tools that actually would look OK even to a 21 Century computer science students. Nowadays, even browser (e.g., Safari and FireFox) have debugging tools built in that make SLIME look like last century technology that belongs to a computer museum.
The Lisp community is not only small but also fragmented. The 21 century computer science world need no more essays explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is (stale). It is time to leap into action and to IMPLEMENT stuff that is not just interesting to the Common Lisp community but to computer science in general. Play with Clozure Common Lisp the IDE version (Mac and Window). Do not just get frustrated and switch back to Slime but ask yourself "what can YOU do for Common Lisp (or more specifically CCL) to make it cool again"
best, Alex
On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
This is a very nice essay to help people get over their initial problems with Lisp:
http://pavelpenev.posterous.com/learning-lisp-the-bump-free-way
Prof. Alexander Repenning
University of Colorado Computer Science Department Boulder, CO 80309-430
vCard: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/AlexanderRepenning.vcf
pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
Prof. Alexander Repenning
University of Colorado Computer Science Department Boulder, CO 80309-430
vCard: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/AlexanderRepenning.vcf
pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
On 20 January 2011 11:46, Alexander Repenning ralex@cs.colorado.edu wrote:
Hi Drew, perhaps the point of a mailing list for professional lisp developers is to act, well ... professional?
Is it professional to publish what was intended as private correspondence on a public mailing list?
Remember one of the points made in original article about the Lisp community: "The community isn’t nearly as blood thirsty as some people might portrait it."
I can't speak for the entire community, only for myself.
Seems to me you just confirmed what many people appear to worry about. Well done.
I'm not going to get in this argument on this mailing list, i don't think it's the place. If you'd like to have this discussion, please feel free to email me privately.
Cheers,
drewc
Alex
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Drew Crampsie wrote:
On 20 January 2011 08:04, Alexander Repenning ralex@cs.colorado.edu wrote:
Common Lisp has gone STALE. The Common Lisp community preserves Lisp instead of advancing it.
I participated in the creation of this mailing list in part to get away from trolling like this on the other lisp forums. Is there no place on the interwebs safe from such bullshit?
The 21 century computer science world need no more essays explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is (stale).
And i'm not convinced a mailing list for professional lisp developers needs more diatribes explaining how _we_ should 'fix' Common Lisp to make it 'cool' again.
Can we leave this sort of drivel on comp.lang.lisp where i have plonk-ability, and keep this mailing list for "people who already know and use Common Lisp and who don't want to discuss the merits of it or how other languages are worse or better"?
Cheers,
drewc
On 20 January 2011 08:04, Alexander Repenning ralex@cs.colorado.edu wrote:
One point made:
It’s probably faster than most dynamic languages.
is still mostly true but as I am tracking the speed of JavaScript versus Common Lisp I can see a scary performance cross over point in the near future (months). Already, in some of our benchmarks JavaScript running in OS X Chrome is getting very close (10% gap) to Clozure Common Lisp. Why is that? Common Lisp has gone STALE. The Common Lisp community preserves Lisp instead of advancing it. The result: flatline! As far as I can tell non of the exciting JIT compiler technologies developed in the last couple of years have made it into any CL implementation. If you follow this trend you may conclude the right thing to do, if you want to continue to use Lisp, would be to compile it down to JavaScript, yes, JavaScript, not C or direct to binary.
Same thing with IDEs: stale, flatline.. Perhaps with the exception of LispWorks it appears that most Lisp programmers are just fine with Emacs. Well, Emacs was great 35 years ago. Remember the actually innovative IDEs of Lisp on Lisp machines? Is SLIME really the best we can do now? Take Clozure CL. As far as I can tell most people, including some the developers perhaps, are using SLIME too. Start using something new. For instance start using the Cocoa based CCL IDE. Yes, still primitive but with real opportunities to create some fine IDE tools that actually would look OK even to a 21 Century computer science students. Nowadays, even browser (e.g., Safari and FireFox) have debugging tools built in that make SLIME look like last century technology that belongs to a computer museum.
The Lisp community is not only small but also fragmented. The 21 century computer science world need no more essays explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is (stale). It is time to leap into action and to IMPLEMENT stuff that is not just interesting to the Common Lisp community but to computer science in general. Play with Clozure Common Lisp the IDE version (Mac and Window). Do not just get frustrated and switch back to Slime but ask yourself "what can YOU do for Common Lisp (or more specifically CCL) to make it cool again"
best, Alex
On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
This is a very nice essay to help people get over their
initial problems with Lisp:
http://pavelpenev.posterous.com/learning-lisp-the-bump-free-way
Prof. Alexander Repenning
University of Colorado
Computer Science Department
Boulder, CO 80309-430
vCard: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/AlexanderRepenning.vcf
pro mailing list
pro@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
Prof. Alexander Repenning
University of Colorado
Computer Science Department
Boulder, CO 80309-430
vCard: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/AlexanderRepenning.vcf
Alexander,
Here's my own interpretation of what Drew said, which I admit may or may not be what he had in mind. (I do agree that he said it in a rude way.) The heart of what he wrote is:
And i'm not convinced a mailing list for professional lisp developers needs more diatribes explaining how _we_ should 'fix' Common Lisp to make it 'cool' again.
This could be interpreted as "We don't need to do [those things]", but I think (hope) what he really meant was that it's not constructive to just *say* that we ought to do those things. It's more constructive to discuss why.
For a long time, I've been saying:
- The languages that have been vibrant and for which tools are flourishing are the ones that are (a) perceived as exciting, and/or (b) used by a large and/or growing community. It's hard to make this happen for Common Lisp.
(Just for one example: consider why lisp.org still makes Lisp look like a dusty historical artifact, as compared with python.org or ruby.org. The reasons for this are somewhat complicated and historical, but, for whatever reasons, the problem persists.)
- Nobody is paid to create better open-source Lisp programming environments. Doing a good IDE is hard. Even doing a Lisp plugin for Eclipse (which lets you share some of its existing mechanisms) is hard enough that the only one I know of is still pretty basic. Even here at ITA where so many of us use Lisp, I don't think we have one person assigned to improve or supersede Slime. We are trying get better code coverage checking so that we can improve our unit testing, but that's the only such thing going on that I am aware of.
- There is a lot of obsolete stuff in Common Lisp. I and others have written about this at some length. See http://ilc2009.scheming.org/node/7.
As for me, if the Google acquisition of ITA happens, chances are that I won't be allowed to use Common Lisp, and that it's unlikely that I'll ever have a chance to use it for a paid job ever again. Not impossible, but unlikely. There are reasons for that.
So as much as we may agree with the problems you are talking about, it's very hard to solve them for real.
-- Dan
On 20 January 2011 12:03, Daniel Weinreb dlw@itasoftware.com wrote:
Alexander,
Here's my own interpretation of what Drew said, which I admit may or may not be what he had in mind. (I do agree that he said it in a rude way.)
In my own defense, i immediately followed up with this :
"Didn't quite mean to be so abrasive there, hadn't had my coffee and was in no mood. Accept my apologies for the presentation, but i stand by the content."
I also did not intend for the discussion to clutter the list. Since the cat's out of the bag, i suppose i'll chime in publicly.
The heart of what he wrote is:
And i'm not convinced a mailing list for professional lisp developers needs more diatribes explaining how _we_ should 'fix' Common Lisp to make it 'cool' again.
This could be interpreted as "We don't need to do [those things]", but I think (hope) what he really meant was that it's not constructive to just *say* that we ought to do those things. It's more constructive to discuss why.
It's a bit of both, to be honest.
The fact that javascript JIT compiler technology comes within 10% of CCL on some benchmarks isn't a problem that i personally run into, and the lack of an IDE hasn't stopped me from delivering products in Common Lisp. Nor has the perceived lack of vibrancy impeded my ability to find paying work in CL. However, i'm willing to agree that these problems exist.
I do, however, think that comparing the work produced by the open source CL community to that produced by multi-billion dollar corporations is both unfair and counter-productive. Apple and Google have something to sell, and are aggressively attempting to sell it to both users and developers. Their /raison d'etre/ is to produce tools that are useful for the casual developer and used by the masses.
The same can not be said of the Clozure team, the SBCL devs, the SLIME folk or us working slobs just trying to make a living using CL. If i had the resources of a mega-corporation behind me, do you think cliki would be held together with duct-tape and bubble gum, or common-lisp.net would look old and tired? Would the ALU wiki crash every few months and be generally a mess to work with? I'd like to think otherwise.
The root of the perceived problem is a lack of resources, not a lack of effort or desire on the part of the "lisp community". There are many in the "lisp community" working to " IMPLEMENT stuff that is not just interesting to the Common Lisp community but to computer science in general", and there are plenty of folk playing with the CCL IDE, among others. A call to arms such as the OP's sounds to me more like an order to "work harder" rather then a productive solution or even a motivating idea.
I suppose i am just tired of hearing, on every lisp forum everywhere, someone's ideas about what's wrong with CL and how the "lisp community" can work to fix it when "we're" already working as hard as we can just to keep things running.
While my (private) reply was admittedly over-the-top rude, it was an emotional response to feeling as if i'd (we'd?) been shit on for my (our?) efforts. It's almost enough to make me want to take my toys and go home.
Cheers,
drewc
For a long time, I've been saying:
- The languages that have been vibrant and for which tools
are flourishing are the ones that are (a) perceived as exciting, and/or (b) used by a large and/or growing community. It's hard to make this happen for Common Lisp.
(Just for one example: consider why lisp.org still makes Lisp look like a dusty historical artifact, as compared with python.org or ruby.org. The reasons for this are somewhat complicated and historical, but, for whatever reasons, the problem persists.)
- Nobody is paid to create better open-source Lisp programming
environments. Doing a good IDE is hard. Even doing a Lisp plugin for Eclipse (which lets you share some of its existing mechanisms) is hard enough that the only one I know of is still pretty basic. Even here at ITA where so many of us use Lisp, I don't think we have one person assigned to improve or supersede Slime. We are trying get better code coverage checking so that we can improve our unit testing, but that's the only such thing going on that I am aware of.
- There is a lot of obsolete stuff in Common Lisp. I and others
have written about this at some length. See http://ilc2009.scheming.org/node/7.
As for me, if the Google acquisition of ITA happens, chances are that I won't be allowed to use Common Lisp, and that it's unlikely that I'll ever have a chance to use it for a paid job ever again. Not impossible, but unlikely. There are reasons for that.
So as much as we may agree with the problems you are talking about, it's very hard to solve them for real.
-- Dan
pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Drew Crampsie drewc@tech.coop wrote:
I do, however, think that comparing the work produced by the open source CL community to that produced by multi-billion dollar corporations is both unfair and counter-productive. Apple and Google have something to sell, and are aggressively attempting to sell it to both users and developers. Their /raison d'etre/ is to produce tools that are useful for the casual developer and used by the masses.
The same can not be said of the Clozure team, the SBCL devs, the SLIME folk or us working slobs just trying to make a living using CL. If i had the resources of a mega-corporation behind me, do you think cliki would be held together with duct-tape and bubble gum, or common-lisp.net would look old and tired? Would the ALU wiki crash every few months and be generally a mess to work with? I'd like to think otherwise.
The root of the perceived problem is a lack of resources, not a lack of effort or desire on the part of the "lisp community".
I think Franz, Lispworks, ITA et al are vital parts of the "lisp community". I think the fact that none of them is paying anyone to maintain SLIME, ALU wiki, common-lisp.net &c is indicative of understandable but deplorable corporate myopia ("public goods cannot be produced by private businesses").
Sam Steingold wrote on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:16:10PM -0500:
I think Franz, Lispworks, ITA et al are vital parts of the "lisp community". I think the fact that none of them is paying anyone to maintain SLIME, ALU wiki, common-lisp.net &c is indicative of understandable but deplorable corporate myopia ("public goods cannot be produced by private businesses").
From my perspective SLIME just doesn't work well enough that I would
have put some steam behind it.
Of course ilisp, which did work better for me, is now way too behind the times to be rescued. So I guess I'm stuck unless I want to go with Hemlock?
Franz and Lispworks all have their own Emacs and CL editor, respectively. That might have to do with it :-)
Martin
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Sam Steingold sds@gnu.org wrote:
I think Franz, Lispworks, ITA et al are vital parts of the "lisp community". I think the fact that none of them is paying anyone to maintain SLIME, ALU wiki, common-lisp.net &c is indicative of understandable but deplorable corporate myopia ("public goods cannot be produced by private businesses").
All of those you mentioned have supported the CL community in various ways, with money as well as with other resources. This includes things like being a sponsor of the ALU (and thus at least indirectly paying for the ALU website), sponsoring Lisp meetings and conferences, helping open source projects with licenses and/or manpower, and other things. It went even as far as Martin Simmons from LispWorks working on SLIME himself although the company he is a director of sells its own IDE.
Edi.
On 20 January 2011 13:16, Sam Steingold sds@gnu.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Drew Crampsie drewc@tech.coop wrote:
The root of the perceived problem is a lack of resources, not a lack of effort or desire on the part of the "lisp community".
I think Franz, Lispworks, ITA et al are vital parts of the "lisp community". I think the fact that none of them is paying anyone to maintain SLIME, ALU wiki, common-lisp.net &c is indicative of understandable but deplorable corporate myopia ("public goods cannot be produced by private businesses").
To be fair, i've never asked for financial contributions from anyone, and perhaps that's something i should do. Perhaps a banner ad with my sad face ala wikipedia. I've got a small team of developers with experience doing web and systems apps in lisp, and we could be convinced to work for peanuts given the glory involved ;).
In all seriousness, i think it's time i ask the community for some help before i get (more) jaded and apathetic.
Cheers,
drewc
-- Sam Steingold http://sds.podval.org
Correction:
Daniel Weinreb wrote:
As for me, if the Google acquisition of ITA happens, chances are that I won't be allowed to use Common Lisp,
Sorry, what I meant was that it was unlikely that we'd be able to use Common Lisp for NEW projects. I am confident that Google is not so brain-dead as to require us to re-code what we have into, say, Java, just for the sake of having it be in Java.
-- Dan
and that it's unlikely that I'll ever have a chance to use it for a paid job ever again. Not impossible, but unlikely. There are reasons for that.
So as much as we may agree with the problems you are talking about, it's very hard to solve them for real.
-- Dan
pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro