Slashdot Mirror
LispM Source Released Under 'BSD Like' License
mschaef writes "Announced on Bill Clementson's Blog, Brad Parker has stated that he has
'permission from MIT to release all the LISPM source code with a "BSD like" source license.'" Zach Beane has also set up a torrent for easy download.
Naughty Dog used a variant to write "Jak and Daxter", an extremely popular game for Playstation 2. Many more people use spiritual descendents like Python.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Does this count? Or this? Lisp is a very powerful language. Paren matching is rendered trivial with any decent editor. The syntax is actually quite nice and clean once you get used to it. I wouldn't use it for everything, and it does have some core ugliness (hey, so does C++), but it has an undeservedly bad reputation.
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
There are the original TPC tape images included, and then those same images in SIMH format. Then there's an archive of the extracted files, and the archive is also extracted.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Here here! I find it incredible to see that C/Java people bitch about "superflous" punctuation. Compare this:
// 5 punctuation marks
// 7 punctuation marks
// 7 punctuation marks
// 10 punctuation marks (11 if you count the 'else')
// 4 punctuation marks
(defun square (x) (* x x)) ; 6 punctuation marks
To C:
double square(double x) {return x * x;}
To C++:
template <typename T>
T square(T x) {return x * x;}
To Java:
public class Square
{
public double operate(double x) {return x * x;}
};
Compare this:
(if (something) ; 8 punctuation marks
(do-this)
(do-that))
To C/C++/Java:
if(something())
do_this();
else
do_that();
Compare this:
(do-something to-this with-that in-there) ; 2 punctuation marks
To C/C++/Java:
do_something(to-this, with-that, in-there)
The only reason it seems like there are so many parentheses in Lisp is because of LET and because Lisp uses just a single type of punctuation while C/C++/Java use all sorts of different punctuation. With a good editor, the parentheses don't even matter, all you see is the indented structure!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
However, [Python] does have a lot of the features that many of us liked about Lisp,
The comparison is a bit complicated.
From the starting point of, say, C++, Python has a lot of the same kind of appeal that Common Lisp does, and for many of the same reasons. In philosophy, however, the Pythonistas and the Lispniks seem to have much to disagree about.
For instance, it seems (from the noises I hear over in Lisp forums), that Guido actively works to eliminate Lisp-isms in favor of his own "clearer" syntax. Whereas the Common Lisp folks tend to keep stuff around *forever*, and if someone invents a clearer replacement, they migrate to it, but nobody cares much that the old stuff is left behind. However, Schemers like the "one elegant way instead of three different ways". Whether you consider Scheme to be a Lisp or not is a great way to start a flame war.
Where this matters most is in Lisp macros. (For the nth time, these have nothing to do with C preprocessor macros, rather, they let you implement language extensions using the full power of the language, and with seamless integration to the original language and other extensions). Lispniks would never give those up. Pythonistas seem to not understand what the big deal about macros is. Schemers don't like macros because it is possible to write buggy macros, and want their own elegant, bulletproof mechanisms to define language extensions. This is yet another great way to start flame wars.
Pythonistas seem to not understand what the big deal about macros is.
Actually, the python community in general and Guido in particular understand very well what the big deal is. They've looked at macros and said, "yeah, that would be nice, but we don't want to allow the language to be rewritten on a user-by-user basis."
In other words, "readability counts", and that goes out the door with macros. Maybe not for disciplined programmers, but we all know the world is full of the other kind.
For a start, it's source code. It compiled for a processor designed specifically to run Lisp (36-bits anyone?), so the object code was quite compact.
Second, it did stuff in the 80s that are still hard to do today. For example, how many development systems allow you to locate a piece of windowing behaviour that you like, anywhere in the OS, and import that behaviour to your own code with a few mouse clicks? Or drop into microcode when necessary? The JVM is smaller because it does a whole lot less.
Third, the machine I used cost £1M at the time, so I don't think they were worried about the odd extra RAM chip. Lisp uses lots of RAM when it runs, no matter how compact the code.
They were fantastic machines - in the year Apple released their first laser printer and IBM were talking seriously about a windowing environment, these guys were using a 68000 just to bootstrap the main processor, and there weren't a lot of other 24-bit displays around, let alone full-blown rendering packages to take advantage of them.
Virtually serving coffee