Search Results

Search found 9366 results on 375 pages for 'common lisp'.

Page 1/375 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• scheme vs common lisp: war stories

  - by SuperElectric

  There are no shortage of vague "Scheme vs Common Lisp" questions on StackOverflow, so I want to make this one more focused. The question is for people who have coded in both languages: While coding in Scheme, what specific elements of your Common Lisp coding experience did you miss most? Or, inversely, while coding in Common Lisp, what did you miss from coding in Scheme? I don't necessarily mean just language features. The following are all valid things to miss, as far as the question is concerned: Specific libraries. Specific features of development environments like SLIME, DrRacket, etc. Features of particular implementations, like Gambit's ability to write blocks of C code directly into your Scheme source. And of course, language features. Examples of the sort of answers I'm hoping for: "I was trying to implement X in Common Lisp, and if I had Scheme's first-class continuations, I totally would've just done Y, but instead I had to do Z, which was more of a pain." "Scripting the build process in Scheme project, got increasingly painful as my source tree grew and I linked in more and more C libraries. For my next project, I moved back to Common Lisp." "I have a large existing C++ codebase, and for me, being able to embed C++ calls directly in my Gambit Scheme code was totally worth any shortcomings that Scheme may have vs Common Lisp, even including lack of SWIG support." So, I'm hoping for war stories, rather than general sentiments like "Scheme is a simpler language" etc.

  Read the article

• Why do you like Lisp ?

  - by Geek

  Why does Paul Graham advocate Lisp? Why did ITA Software choose Lisp over other High Level languages? Lisp obviously is an advantage for the AI stuff but I don't think Lisp is any faster than Java, C# or as a matter of fact faster than C. Still it is considered as a Hackers language? I am not a master of Lisp but I find it incredibly difficult to understand the advantage one would get in writing Business Software in Lisp.

  Read the article

• Why is Lisp useful?

  - by Geek

  Lisp obviously is an advantage for the AI stuff but it doesn't appear to me that Lisp is any faster than Java, C#, or even C. I am not a master of Lisp, but I find it incredibly difficult to understand the advantage one would get in writing Business Software in Lisp. Yet it is considered as a hacker's language. Why does Paul Graham advocate Lisp? Why did ITA Software choose Lisp over other high Level languages? What value does it have over these languages?

  Read the article

• How should I start with Lisp?

  - by Gary Rowe

  I've been programming for years now, working my way through various iterations of Blub (BASIC, Assembler, C, C++, Visual Basic, Java, Ruby in no particular order of "Blub-ness") and I'd like to learn Lisp. However, I have a lot of intertia what with limited time (family, full time job etc) and a comfortable happiness with my current Blub (Java). So my question is this, given that I'm someone who would really like to learn Lisp, what would be the initial steps to get a good result that demonstrates the superiority of Lisp in web development? Maybe I'm missing the point, but that's how I would initially see the application of my Lisp knowledge. I'm thinking "use dialect A, use IDE B, follow instructions on page C, question your sanity after monads using counsellor D". I'd just like to know what people here consider to be an optimal set of values for A, B, C and perhaps D. Also some discussion on the relative merit of learning such a powerful language as opposed to, say, becoming a Rails expert. Just to add some more detail, I'll be developing on MacOS (or a Linux VM) - no Windows based approaches will be necessary, thanks. Notes for those just browsing by I'm going to keep this question open for a while so that I can offer feedback on the suggestions after I've been able to explore them. If you happen to be browsing by and feel you have something to add, please do. I would really welcome your feedback. Interesting links Assuming you're coming at Lisp from a Java background, this set of links will get you started quickly. Using Intellij's La Clojure plugin to integrate Lisp (videocast) Lisp for the Web Online version of Practical Common Lisp (c/o Frank Shearar) Land of Lisp a (+ (+ very quirky) game based) way in but makes it all so straightforward

  Read the article

• How should I start with Lisp?

  - by Gary Rowe

  I've been programming for years now, working my way through various iterations of Blub (BASIC, Assembler, C, C++, Visual Basic, Java, Ruby in no particular order of "Blub-ness") and I'd like to learn Lisp. However, I have a lot of intertia what with limited time (family, full time job etc) and a comfortable happiness with my current Blub (Java). So my question is this, given that I'm someone who would really like to learn Lisp, what would be the initial steps to get a good result that demonstrates the superiority of Lisp in web development? Maybe I'm missing the point, but that's how I would initially see the application of my Lisp knowledge. I'm thinking "use dialect A, use IDE B, follow instructions on page C, question your sanity after monads using counsellor D". I'd just like to know what people here consider to be an optimal set of values for A, B, C and perhaps D. Also some discussion on the relative merit of learning such a powerful language as opposed to, say, becoming a Rails expert. Just to add some more detail, I'll be developing on MacOS (or a Linux VM) - no Windows based approaches will be necessary, thanks. Notes for those just browsing by I'm going to keep this question open for a while so that I can offer feedback on the suggestions after I've been able to explore them. If you happen to be browsing by and feel you have something to add, please do. I would really welcome your feedback. Interesting links Assuming you're coming at Lisp from a Java background, this set of links will get you started quickly. Using Intellij's La Clojure plugin to integrate Lisp (videocast) Lisp for the Web Online version of Practical Common Lisp (c/o Frank Shearar) Land of Lisp a (+ (+ very quirky) game based) way in but makes it all so straightforward

  Read the article

• Programming languages with a Lisp-like syntax extension mechanism

  - by Giorgio

  I have only a limited knowledge of Lisp (trying to learn a bit in my free time) but as far as I understand Lisp macros allow to introduce new language constructs and syntax by describing them in Lisp itself. This means that a new construct can be added as a library, without changing the Lisp compiler / interpreter. This approach is very different from that of other programming languages. E.g., if I wanted to extend Pascal with a new kind of loop or some particular idiom I would have to extend the syntax and semantics of the language and then implement that new feature in the compiler. Are there other programming languages outside the Lisp family (i.e. apart from Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure (?), Racket (?), etc) that offer a similar possibility to extend the language within the language itself? EDIT Please, avoid extended discussion and be specific in your answers. Instead of a long list of programming languages that can be extended in some way or another, I would like to understand from a conceptual point of view what is specific to Lisp macros as an extension mechanism, and which non-Lisp programming languages offer some concept that is close to them.

  Read the article

• What's cool about Lisp nowadays? [closed]

  - by Kos

  Possible Duplicates: Why is Lisp useful? Is LISP still useful in today's world? Which version is most used? First of all, let me clarify: I'm aware of Lisp's place in history, as well as in education. I'm asking about its place in practical application, as of 2011. The question is: What features of Lisp make it the preferred choice for projects today? It's widely used in various AI areas as far as I know, and probably also elsewhere. I can imagine projects choosing, for instance... Python because of its concise, readable syntax and it being dynamic, Haskell for being pure functional with a powerful type system, Matlab/Octave for the focus on numerics and big standard libraries, Etc. When should I consider Lisp the proper language for a given problem? What language features make it the preferred choice then? Is its "purity and generality" an advantage which makes it a better choice for some subset of projects than the modern languages? edit- On your demand, a little rephrase (or simply a tl;dr) to make this more specific: a) What problems are solvable with Lisp much more easily than with more common, modern languages like Python or C# (or even F# or Scala)? b) What language features specific for Lisp make it the best choice for those problems?

  Read the article

• How to setup a webserver in common lisp?

  - by Serpico

  Several months ago, I was inspired by the magnificent book ANSI Common Lisp written by Paul Graham, and the statement that Lisp could be used as a secret weapon in your web development, published by the same author on his blog. Wow, that is amazing. That is something that I have been looking for long time. The author really developed a successful web applcation and sold it to Yahoo. With those encouraging images, I determined to spend some time (1 year or 2 year, who knows) on learning Common Lisp. Maybe someday I will development my web application and turn into a great Lisp expert. In fact, this is the second time for me to get to study Lisp. The first time was a couple of years ago when I was fascinated by the famous book SICP but found later Scheme was so unbelievably immature for real life application. After reading some chapters of ANSI Common Lisp, I was pretty sure that is a great book full of detailed exploration of Common Lisp. Then I began to set up a web server in Common Lisp. After all, this should be the best way if you want to learn something. Demonstrations are always better than definations. As suggested by the book Practical Common Lisp (by the way, this is also a great book), I chose to install AllegroServe on some Common Lisp implementation. Then, from somewhere else, I learned that Hunchentoot seems to be better than AllegroServe. (I don't remember where and whom this word is from. So don't argue with me.) Ironically, you know what, I never could installed the two packages on any Common Lisp implementation. More annoyingly, I even don't know why. The machine always spit up a lot of jargon and lead me into a chaos. I've tried searching the internet and have not found anything. Could anybody who has successfully installed these packages in Linux tell me how you did it? Have you run into any trouble? How did you figured out what is wrong and fixed it? The more detailed, the more helpful.

  Read the article

• Object-Oriented equivalent of LISP's progn function?

  - by Archer

  I'm currently writing a LISP parser that iterates through some AutoLISP code and does its best to make it a little easier to read (changing prefix notation to infix notation, changing setq assignments to "=" assignments, etc.) for those that aren't used to LISP code/only learned object oriented programming. While writing commands that LISP uses to add to a "library" of LISP commands, I came across the LISP command "progn". The only problem is that it looks like progn is simply executing code in a specific order and sometimes (not usually) assigning the last value to a variable. Am I incorrect in assuming that for translating progn to object-oriented understanding that I can simply forgo the progn function and print the statements that it contains? If not, what would be a good equivalent for progn in an object-oriented language?

  Read the article

• Scheme vs Common Lisp: war stories

  - by SuperElectric

  There are no shortage of vague "Scheme vs Common Lisp" questions on both StackOverflow and on this site, so I want to make this one more focused. The question is for people who have coded in both languages: While coding in Scheme, what specific elements of your Common Lisp coding experience did you miss most? Or, inversely, while coding in Common Lisp, what did you miss from coding in Scheme? I don't necessarily mean just language features. The following are all valid things to miss, as far as the question is concerned: Specific libraries. Specific features of development environments like SLIME, DrRacket, etc. Features of particular implementations, like Gambit's ability to write blocks of C code directly into your Scheme source. And of course, language features. Examples of the sort of answers I'm hoping for: "I was trying to implement X in Common Lisp, and if I had Scheme's first-class continuations, I totally would've just done Y, but instead I had to do Z, which was more of a pain." "Scripting the build process in my Scheme project got increasingly painful as my source tree grew and I linked in more and more C libraries. For my next project, I moved back to Common Lisp." "I have a large existing C++ codebase, and for me, being able to embed C++ calls directly in my Gambit Scheme code was totally worth any shortcomings that Scheme may have vs Common Lisp, even including lack of SWIG support." So, I'm hoping for war stories, rather than general sentiments like "Scheme is a simpler language" etc.

  Read the article

• What does your Lisp workflow look like?

  - by Duncan Bayne

  I'm learning Lisp at the moment, coming from a language progression that is Locomotive BASIC - Z80 Assembler - Pascal - C - Perl - C# - Ruby. My approach is to simultaneously: write a simple web-scraper using SBCL, QuickLisp, closure-html, and drakma watch the SICP lectures I think this is working well; I'm developing good 'Lisp goggles', in that I can now read Lisp reasonably easily. I'm also getting a feel for how the Lisp ecosystem works, e.g. Quicklisp for dependencies. What I'm really missing, though, is a sense of how a seasoned Lisper actually works. When I'm coding for .NET, I have Visual Studio set up with ReSharper and VisualSVN. I write tests, I implement, I refactor, I commit. Then when I'm done enough of that to complete a story, I write some AUATs. Then I kick off a Release build on TeamCity to push the new functionality out to the customer for testing & hopefully approval. If it's an app that needs an installer, I use either WiX or InnoSetup, obviously building the installer through the CI system. So, my question is: as an experienced Lisper, what does your workflow look like? Do you work mostly in the REPL, or in the editor? How do you do unit tests? Continuous integration? Packaging & deployment? When you sit down at your desk, steaming mug of coffee to one side and a framed photo of John McCarthy to the other, what is it that you do? Currently, I feel like I am getting to grips with Lisp coding, but not Lisp development ...

  Read the article

• What does your Lisp workflow look like?

  - by Duncan Bayne

  I'm learning Lisp at the moment, coming from a language progression that is Locomotive BASIC - Z80 Assembler - Pascal - C - Perl - C# - Ruby. My approach is to simultaneously: write a simple web-scraper using SBCL, QuickLisp, closure-html, and drakma watch the SICP lectures I think this is working well; I'm developing good 'Lisp goggles', in that I can now read Lisp reasonably easily. I'm also getting a feel for how the Lisp ecosystem works, e.g. Quicklisp for dependencies. What I'm really missing, though, is a sense of how a seasoned Lisper actually works. When I'm coding for .NET, I have Visual Studio set up with ReSharper and VisualSVN. I write tests, I implement, I refactor, I commit. Then when I'm done enough of that to complete a story, I write some AUATs. Then I kick off a Release build on TeamCity to push the new functionality out to the customer for testing & hopefully approval. If it's an app that needs an installer, I use either WiX or InnoSetup, obviously building the installer through the CI system. So, my question is: as an experienced Lisper, what does your workflow look like? Do you work mostly in the REPL, or in the editor? How do you do unit tests? Continuous integration? Packaging & deployment? When you sit down at your desk, steaming mug of coffee to one side and a framed photo of John McCarthy to the other, what is it that you do? Currently, I feel like I am getting to grips with Lisp coding, but not Lisp development ...

  Read the article

• Examples of excellent Common Lisp code?

  - by Frank Shearar

  I've learned enough Common Lisp to be able to muddle my way through writing an application. I've read Seibel's Practical Common Lisp What libraries or programs should I be reading to understand the idioms, the Tao, of Common Lisp?

  Read the article

• Common lisp, CFFI, and instantiating c structs

  - by andrew

  Hi, I've been on google for about, oh, 3 hours looking for a solution to this "problem." I'm trying to figure out how to instantiate a C structure in lisp using CFFI. I have a struct in c: struct cpVect{cpFloat x,y;} Simple right? I have auto-generated CFFI bindings (swig, I think) to this struct: (cffi:defcstruct #.(chipmunk-lispify "cpVect" 'classname) (#.(chipmunk-lispify "x" 'slotname) :double) (#.(chipmunk-lispify "y" 'slotname) :double)) This generates a struct "VECT" with slots :X and :Y, which foreign-slot-names confirms (please note that I neither generated the bindings or programmed the C library (chipmunk physics), but the actual functions are being called from lisp just fine). I've searched far and wide, and maybe I've seen it 100 times and glossed over it, but I cannot figure out how to create a instance of cpVect in lisp to use in other functions. Note the function: cpShape *cpPolyShapeNew(cpBody *body, int numVerts, cpVect *verts, cpVect offset) Takes not only a cpVect, but also a pointer to a set of cpVects, which brings me to my second question: how do I create a pointer to a set of structs? I've been to http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/manual/html_node/defcstruct.html and tried the code, but get "Error: Unbound variable: PTR" (I'm in Clozure CL), not to mention that looks to only return a pointer, not an instance. I'm new to lisp, been going pretty strong so far, but this is the first real problem I've hit that I can't figure out. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Is there a language more general than Lisp?

  - by Jon Purdy

  I've been programming for a long time, and writing in Lisp (well, mostly Scheme) for a little less. My experience in these languages (and other functional languages) has informed my ability to write clean code even with less powerful tools. Lisp-family languages have lovely facilities for implementing every abstraction in common use: S-expressions generalise structure. Macros generalise syntax. Continuations generalise flow control. But I'm dissatisfied. Somehow, I want more. Is there a language that's more general? More powerful? As great as Lisp is, I find it hard to believe no one has come up with anything (dare I say) better. I'm well aware that ordinarily a question like this ought to be closed for its argumentative nature. But there seems to be a broad consensus that Lisp represents the theoretical pinnacle of programming language design. I simply refuse to accept that without some kind of proof. Which I guess amounts to questioning whether the lambda calculus is in fact the ideal abstraction of computation.

  Read the article

• What are the typical applications of Lisp macros?

  - by Giorgio

  I am trying to learn some LISP and I have read a lot about the importance of LISP macros so I would like to get some working experience with them. Can you suggest a practical application area that would allow me to use macros to solve a real-world problem, and to understand the usefulness of this programming construct? NOTE This is not a generic what project should I do next question. I am interested to understand which kinds of problems are typically solved by means of LISP macros. E.g., are they good for implementing abstract data types? Why was this construct added to the language? What kinds of problems does it solve that cannot be solved by means of simple functions?

  Read the article

• Why isn't LISP more widespread?

  - by Andrea

  I am starting to learn Scheme by the SICP videos, and I would like to move to Common Lisp next. The language seems very interesting, and most of the people writings books on it advocate that it has unequalled expressive power. CL seems to have a decent standard library. Why is not Lisp more widespread? If it is really that powerful, people should be using it all over, but instead it is nearly impossible to find, say, Lisp job advertisements. I hope it is not just the parenthesis, as they are not a great problem after a little while.

  Read the article

• Types in Lisp and Scheme

  - by user2054900

  I see now that Racket has types. At first glance it seems to be almost identical to Haskell typing. But is Lisp's CLOS covering some of the space Haskell types cover? Creating a very strict Haskell type and an object in any OO language seems vaguely similar. It's just that I've drunk some of the Haskell kool-aid and I'm totally paranoid that if I go down the Lisp road, I'll be screwed due to dynamic typing.

  Read the article

• What did Stallman mean in this quote about implementing other languages in Lisp?

  - by Charlie Flowers

  I just read the following quote from Stallman as part of a speech he gave many years ago. He's talking about how it is feasible to implement other programming languages in Lisp, but not feasible to implement Lisp in those other programming languages. He seems to take for granted that the listeners/readers understand why. But I don't see why. I think the answer will explain something about Lisp to me, and I'd like to understand it. Can someone explain it? Here's the quote: "There's an interesting benefit you can get from using such a powerful language as a version of Lisp as your primary extensibility language. You can implement other languages by translating them into your primary language. If your primary language is TCL, you can't very easily implement Lisp by translating it into TCL. But if your primary language is Lisp, it's not that hard to implement other things by translating them." The full speech is here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html Thanks.

  Read the article

• Why not port Linux kernel to Common Lisp?

  - by rplevy

  Conventional wisdom states that OS kernels must be written in C in order to achieve the necessary levels of performance. This has been the justification for not using more expressive high level languages. However, for a few years now implementations of Common Lisp such as SBCL have proven to be just as performant as C. What then are the arguments against redoing the kernel in a powerfully expressive language, namely Common Lisp? I don't think anyone (at least anyone who knows what they are talking about) could argue against the fact that the benefits in transparency and readability would be tremendous, not to mention all the things that can't be done in C that can be done in Lisp, but there may be implementation details that would make this a bad idea.

  Read the article

• Connecting .NET to Common Lisp

  - by JPanest

  I have a fairly involved LispWorks Common Lisp module that sits atop some .NET modules via RDNZL. It has come up that I need to expose some of its functionality to some other .NET applications, and I'm not sure the best (shortest) way to approach this without re-writing the module in C#. I know there are a few CLR Lisp implementations but most seem unmaintained or incomplete and there are many things that cannot be trivially re-written in Scheme. Is there any facility that exposes the opposite of what RDNZL enables (.NET - Common Lisp)? Can I use RDNZL to deliver a DLL that accepts .NET objects?

  Read the article

• Lisp Executable

  - by Alexander Stolz

  I've just started learning Lisp and I can't figure out how to compile and link lisp code to an executable. Im using clisp and "clisp -c" produces two files .fas and .lib, what do I do next to get an exeutable?

  Read the article

• Remove first and last characters from a string in Lisp

  - by powerj1984

  I am passing in command line arguments to my Lisp program and they are formatted like this when they hit my main function: ("1 1 1" "dot" "2 2 2") I have a dot function and would like to call it directly from the argument, but first I must strip the " characters. I tried variations of this function: (defun remove-quotes (s) (setf (aref s 0) '"")) to no avail, Lisp complains that "" is not a member of base-char. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Looking for good Lisp code to read

  - by fl3x

  I'm currently trying to get proficient in Common Lisp and to learn some of the tricks for writing compact, clear and beautiful code in it. So, I want to know if you have any sources of good Common Lisp, preferably free and online but books are also OK.

  Read the article

• Lisp Style question label local functions or not?

  - by Andrew Myers

  I was wondering if there is a standard practice regarding the use of labels in Lisp. I've been messing around with a Lisp implementation of the algorithm described in the first answer here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/352203/generating-permutations-lazily My current version uses labels to break out portions of functionality. (defun next-permutation (pmute) (declare (vector pmute)) (let ((len (length pmute))) (if (> len 2) (labels ((get-pivot () (do ((pivot (1- len) (1- pivot))) ((or (= pivot 0) (< (aref pmute (1- pivot)) (aref pmute pivot))) pivot))) (get-swap (pivot) (let ((swp (1- len))) (loop for i from (1- len) downto pivot do (if (or (and (> (aref pmute i) (aref pmute (1- pivot))) (< (aref pmute i) (aref pmute swp))) (< (aref pmute swp) (aref pmute (1- pivot)))) (setf swp i))) swp)) (next (swp pivot) (rotatef (aref pmute (1- pivot)) (aref pmute swp)) (reverse-vector pmute pivot (1- len)))) (let ((piv (get-pivot))) (if (> piv 0) (next (get-swap piv) piv) nil)))))) Since each label is only called once I was wondering if this is considered bad practice since the only reason to do it in this case is for aesthetic reasons. I would argue that the current version with labels is clearer but that may go against common wisdom that I'm not aware of, being new to Lisp.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >