Re: [Gardeners] Scheme vs CommonLisp
Peter, Wow, what an awesome answer. This is exactly right to the best of my own knowledge. I will add a few more facts. As Peter knows, there are a few people out there who are 100% /au courant/ with both Common Lisp and Scheme, technically, culturally, and historically, and can accurately assess the similarities and differences in great detail and very fairly. Alan Bawden and Guy Steele are the ones who spring to mind, but I'm sure there are some others out there. Although Scheme has specs (for the different revisions) that are written far more carefully than the Common Lisp spec, nevertheless the differences between the implementations are severely worse than among the 11 Common Lisp implementations. (Alexey Radul did a presentation not long ago on this at the Boston Lisp Meeting.) Also, revision 6 (known as R6RS) of Scheme, which came out last year, is somewhat controversial, and some Scheme maintainers have said that they will stick at revision 5; but it remains to be seen. The guys behind PLT Scheme are extremely smart and are doing a wonderful job. They have some great programming tools, aimed at students, but usable by anyone. Someday it would be nice if someone created analogous technology for Common Lisp. -- Dan ___ Gardeners mailing list Gardeners@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
Re: [Gardeners] Scheme vs CommonLisp
nubis wrote: I know, I know, this sounds like ramblings from a person who can't make up his mind (which in part, they are) On the contrary, I think you have a very good grasp of the tradeoffs. Am I to wrong to look at Common lisp for a metaprogramable python replacement? (with less library bindings and googlish hype) No, you're right. Is opening a REPL and running your program the recomended way to run a lisp program? was it ever, or was it just a misconception? Yes, while you're developing, definitely. Once you deploy an application, there are ways to start Lisp running your program, so the end user need not see the REPL. -- Dan -- Daniel Weinreb [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://danweinreb.org/blog/ http://ilc2009.scheming.org/ ___ Gardeners mailing list Gardeners@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
Re: [Gardeners] web framework
Nubis, James, James Fleming wrote: Hi there, can anyone recommend me the 'simplest' (as in, will-later-find-myself-doing-ad-hoc-stuff-but-it-was-easy-to-grasp-at-first) web framework for common lisp? I can recommend Hunchentoot. I used to use Araneida, but it seems to have fallen to the competition. Hunchntoot is the best HTTP server in Common Lisp. By Edi Weitz, probably the best writer of free CL libraries. We use it at work. This decision is a no-brainer. Hunchentoot, then, with CL-WHO to produce the actual HTML. There's also a gotcha with CL-WHO, incidentally, regarding when you should use (format t ...) and when to use (format nil ...), but if the output isn't appearing when you expect, that's the first thing to check. I think the big question is what Nubis means by a web framework and what he expects such a thing to do. You might also want to check out UCW (the UnCommon Web). However, it's based on continuations; while they're a nifty language feature, you might want to limit the number of learning curves that you're climbing at any one time. UCW is by Marco Baringer, also an awesome hacker. UCW is known to work with Allegro CL, CMUCL, CCL (Clozure, formerly known as OpenMCL), GNU clisp, and SBCL. Hunchentoot is similar but is not tested in GNU clisp and is tested on LispWorks. I'm sure there are a couple of others, but these seem to be the main contenders. Once you've gotten yourself up and running, definitely check out all the options and see what you make of them from there. BKNR is at http://bknr.net/html/home.html. It looks like it's being maintained by Hans Hubner, also an awesome hacker. (All three of them are currently working at my employer, ITA Software, as consultants. We all know each other very well.) I think there is at least one other major one, but I can't remember. Drew Crampsie's Lisp on Lines isn't finished yet. So which one is best? Read the web sites and overview documentation and see which ones seems to be a better fit for what you had in mind. -- Dan Cheers, James but I want the less 'protocolar' one, I've worked with 'mvc' style frameworks this far, but any other paradigm will do, as long as its lightweight and has passable documentation. thanks! I still don't trust myself to evaluate this kind of things in lisp, and want to start as fast as possible, sorry for my newbie-ism. -- nubis :) http://woobiz.com.ar ___ Gardeners mailing list Gardeners@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners ___ Gardeners mailing list Gardeners@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners -- Daniel Weinreb [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://danweinreb.org/blog/ http://ilc2009.scheming.org/ ___ Gardeners mailing list Gardeners@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
Re: [Gardeners] Scheme vs CommonLisp
Marek Kubica wrote: Scheme does only provides only HOP (runs only on Bigloo) and the stuff that PLT Scheme comes with. HOP is so cool! As long as you want to program in the Bigloo implementation of Scheme. http://hop.inria.fr/ It won the Open Source Software Competition at ACM Multimedia 2007. I saw Manuel Serrano's presentation at the Montreal Scheme and Lisp User Group last fall. Everybody was blown away. The feature and problem with Scheme is that it has been traditionally tiny, so it is hard to write useful code that is implementation independent (And also the implementations just aren't very compatible with each other Common Lisp implementations are actually quite good about this, as far as the language spec goes. Language extensions, however are idiosyncratic.) so you often have a hard time to find libraries that you need (for example datetime - as far as I have seen only SCSH seems to have facilities to calculate with dates). Usually I'd recommend PLT Scheme which comes with batteries included and has a Cheeseshop equivalent called PLaneT where you can find some more libraries that might help you. Indeed. But HOP probably won't work with it. Common Lisp has the great SLIME extension, whereas Scheme has DrScheme which is also a reasonably good Scheme editor with some nifty features. PLT Scheme has DrScheme; I don't know whether it runs in other Schemes. -- Dan Now, the conclusion is... use what fits your mind better. Maybe I am talking too much about it, I should better try to continue building some real programs :) regards, Marek ___ Gardeners mailing list Gardeners@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners -- Daniel Weinreb [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://danweinreb.org/blog/ http://ilc2009.scheming.org/ ___ Gardeners mailing list Gardeners@lispniks.com http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
