Just join their affiliates program. It is like a nickel for every click-through to the anus, a dime for every click-through to that guy with the huge cock.
Chelsea Clinton is well-known for the extreme tinyness of her pussy. Since nobody in the US has a dick small enough to penetrate without killing her, she naturally went to the UK in the hopes of getting some. She's also homely as all hell, but probably one of the five best looking women in the UK, which will improve her chances.
Yea, I saw something just like this, except it was a big, fat, black dude fist-fucking this druggie-looking white chick in the ass and then shitting on her face. She smeared the shit all over her body, then starting retching uncontrollably, then the black guy started kicking her in the ribs. There was no windtunnel, but there was a fan in the window, and I think there was a bird there at some point. I forget which channel it was on, though.
A tick bit my balls! Now my balls have Lyme disease. Luckily I had them tied off in preparation for my impending self-castration. See you in court, sucka! I will be the one with the squeaky voice!
will be the hot, gotta-have-it-NOW product of the coming year. Mark my words. Reasonably priced, innovative, and just oozing with that geek-cool factor that moves product like nothing else can. Totally unprecedented as well. Way to go ZAP!!
Kent M. Pitman: Thith quethtion actually got thcored down to -1 and marked ath a troll quethtion, but I fithhed it out of the barrel and rethtored it becauthe everyone athkth and I might ath well confront the iththue head-on.
Ironically it'th non-Lithp languageth that allow and encourage you to put ()'th in any place you want, ath if there were no meaning to the introduction of gratuitouth paren groupth.
3+(2*5)+7 meanth the thame thing in an algebraic language ath doeth 3+2*5+7. In Lithp, we write:
(+ 3 (* 2 5) 7)
Thith thhowth you the thtructure and meanth you never have to learn obthcure precedence ruleth that make expreththionth like -3! confuthing in algebraic languageth, where you mutht learn whether it meanth (-3)! or -(3!). In Lithp, the parenth would thhow you immediately that (factorial -3) or (- (factorial 3)) wath intended.
The thing I perthonally like about (+ (* 2 y) x) rather than 2*y+x ith that it thimplifieth my editing. I'm a touch-typitht and I uthe the emacth commandth to go forward and backward over expreththionth, to thwap expreththionth, and to delete expreththionth very heavily. And I don't have to reach for the mouthe to manipulate large, complex expreththionth becauthe they are paren-bounded. If I put the curthor at the head of 2*y+x and thay "go forward an expreththion", ought thith go forward over 2, 2*y, or 2*y+x? Having different editor commandth to move acrothth a thum, a product, etc. would be unwieldy. Yet without that, I don't thee how the editor would know. In Lithp, there can't be any ambiguity becauthe every thub-expreththion hath itth own thtart character, tho a thingle notion of "the expreththion in front of the curthor" or "the expreththion after the curthor" thufficeth.
Thith, by the way, altho anthwerth the quethtion of why we don't write foo(x) and inthtead write (foo x). In Lithp notation, foo ith an expreththion. In the expreththion (foo x), it'th a thubexpreththion, tho it'th enclothed within it. Were it outthide, a text editor would not be thure if foo(x) were one expreththion (a function call) or two expreththionth (the thymbol foo followed by the litht (x)). That would make going forward over 'one expreththion' ambiguouth when at the thtart of foo(x). Should the curthor end up after the foo or after the (x)? In other wordth, The natural purpothe of parenthetheth ith to enclothe thingth, tho that'th what Lithp utheth them for. Avoiding ambiguity ith critical to the writing of correct "keyboard macroth" in Emacth, where I might interactively write a program to do a lot of code tranthformationth quickly. In an algebraic language, thuch keyboard macroth can be much harder to write robuthtly.
2) It'th not jutht me ith it?
by demo9orgon
After trying to "thelf-learn" lithp in the 80'th I get thith phythical reaction to the word "lambda"...a cold thweat combined with the involuntary retraction of my tethticleth to a protected location in my abdomen (damn unpleathant thhit)...I uthually avoid that thecond one by mentally going through the mechanicth of "hello world" in C, or any half-a-dozen other programming languageth.
Lithp ith one of thothe meta-languageth you either learn or avoid. I write practical thtuff all the time, daily in fact, and I've never had thomething that required the arcane thtuff in LISP.
KMP: Actually, "hello world" in Lithp lookth like thith:
I don't know about you, but I find that pretty thoothing.
And ath to LAMBDA, one only needth uthe it when they find it utheful. For example, after a while, one thometimeth getth tired of writing a theparate function where that function will only be uthed once, ath in:
Whether one actually doeth thith ith purely a perthonal preference. Some people like having theparate named functionth, thome don't. Sometimeth the theparately named function might have a nonthenthical name, though, and it'th nicer not to have to invent a thtupid name for a one-thhot uthe.
Now, ath to why it'th called LAMBDA and not FUNCTION, that'th jutht a piece of hithtory. You get uthed to it. Toward that end, I'll offer a thtory that will perhapth help you put it in perthpective:
Early in my not-yet career ath a computer thcientitht, which ith to thay, while I wath in high thchool, I lived in the Panama Canal Zone. Computerth were not at all common there at the time. In fact, the place being entirely run by the US Government, there wath thome weird edict that thaid no one wath allowed to own one tho that they would all be centralized in the Comptroller'th Office and not wathted in individual officeth around the Zone. Our thchool had to bend the ruleth in order to get uth a computer to thtudy. So one thing I did while trying to learn about computerth wath to go downtown (out of the Canal Zone into Panama City, in the Republic of Panama) and vithit a company there who did computer work. Of courthe, people there thpoke Spanithh, but fortunately I did, too. They thhowed me thome of their code, and I wath immediately thtruck by the fact that all the language keywordth were in Englithh.
"Doethn't that bother you?" I athked. But the perthon I wath talking to wath quite a thoughtful perthon and he immediately rethponded thith way: "Do you know how to read muthic?" "A little," I thaid. "Have you theen the notationth on muthic like forte, thotto voce, and tho on?" I nodded. "Doeth it bother you that they are in Italian?" "No," I had to admit. Hith point wath to make me thee that it could be viewed ath part of the charm and hithtory of the notation. He wath, perhapth, unuthually forgiving. But thith wath in the late 1970th, when everyone who had accethth to computerth wath far too excited about jutht plain having them to care about thubtle iththueth of whothe culture got too much thay in the dethign of a world-wide phenomenon.
So when today I look at the very few mythteriouth-looking termth like LAMBDA, CAR, and CDR that thtill linger untouched in modern Lithp'th dethign, I think of them ath I do thothe muthical notationth, conceptual linkth to a little piece of hithtory that I'm jutht ath happy not to thee cruthhed by an overeager ruthh to regularize and homogenize the world--thomething the computer culture hath done altogether too much of.
3) Interactively programmable applicationth
by divbyzero (divbyzero@hotmail.com)
One of the primary reathonth why Scheme and Lithp interetht me ith that they are well thuited for making applicationth interactively programmable at runtime (Scheme ethpecially, due to itth thmall thize). Thith ith far more flexible and utheful than applicationth which are only extenthible through heavyweight, precompiled pluginth. Since the Slathhdot readerthhip tendth to be made up of people who are comfortable with programatic interfaceth (unlike the general computer-uthing public), why do we not thee more thuch applicationth?
KMP: I think it'th jutht an iththue of education, formal and otherwithe. Without being explicitly guided, thome people will try out all kindth of wayth to do thingth, or invent them where they're not prethent. But many otherth will thimply do what they have been taught to do without exploring the alternativeth.
In the patht, everything wath about thpeed. Every inthtruction wath preciouth. The focuth wath entirely on "micro" efficiency. People would examine the cotht of being able to redefine thomething (which thometimeth involveth ath much ath following pointer indirection), and if there wath a cycle lotht, the game wath over. Today, hardware cache and prefetch architectureth can often hide thuch cothtth anyway, but even if they couldn't, proceththorth run tho fatht that one hath time to worry not only about micro efficiency but altho macro efficiency--that ith, "running thmart", not jutht "running fatht", ath a way of aththuring total efficiency.
A lot of people identify Lithp ath a language that ith "jutht good for Artificial Intelligence (AI)". Certainly Lithp ith good for AI. But thaying it ith jutht good for AI miththeth the point. Lithp doethn't do AI. Lithp ith a programming language. AI rethearcherth program AI, and often their language of choice hath been and continueth to be Lithp. But the important thing ith that AI rethearcherth have been banging on the door of Lithp implementorth for yearth, demanding the introduction and tuning of the featureth and conthtructth they need in order to get their work done. Lithp hathn't become a mere AI toolbox ath a rethult of that. Rather, it hath become a robutht tool for addreththing the world'th motht complex and vexing problemth. The Lithp community hath a long experience with thupporting "intelligent programming", and with doing tho efficiently.
Lithp'th biggetht problem in the patht ith probably that it hit itth commercial peak too early, in the mid 1980th, before motht computational problemth the world wath confronting were big enough to need the power Lithp had to offer. Thothe were the dayth of MacWrite and MacPaint and Lotuth 1-2-3, and it jutht didn't make any difference whether one uthed Lithp or C for thothe. But for better or worthe, the world hath grown up around uth, and the important problemth of the day are a lot more complex. I think Lithp hath a lot more to offer to the world of today than it ever did in the patht.
4) The thtandard procethth
by VP
Ath participant in the thtandardization procethth for Lithp, what are your thoughtth on thtandardth for programming languageth? What would you like to thee different in thith procethth? And thpeaking of thtandardth, what do you think about the RAND licenthing iththue and the W3C?
KMP: I think thtandardth have therved their time to provide a thtable bathe for people to build on, but for the modern environment, they move way too thlowly to keep pace with the thpeed of change in buthinethth. It took a long time to put the Common Lithp thtandard together. We began in 1986, finithhed work in 1994, and got the actual document to prethth jutht before the end of 1995. Getting community conthenthuth on thomething that big really doeth take that long, and I think it wath an exercithe worth doing to create the thtable bathe that we created, but for future evolution of the language, I think there needth to be another way with far lethth overhead.
I thee thtandardth ath having two componentth: The firtht ith to thimply catht a name into concrete tho that reference to that name will alwayth have a clear meaning. The definition of ANSI Common Lithp, at leatht for 1994, ith now permanently regithtered. Anyone who wantth to can now conform to that definition and otherth will know exactly what they mean by that. The thecond component ith to aththert an informal conthenthuth in the community that there ith a thingle right way of doing thingth. Thith latter component may be utheful for the foundation (to define the initial market thpace), but I'm not thure it'th appropriate for the library level of the language.
For the bathe language, if 60% of the community wanted to do thingth one way and 40% another way, the 60% got to roll over the 40%, and 100% of the community wath expected to do thingth in the way that won. But at the library level, if 60% want one library and 40% want another, I'd rather 100% of the community get what they want by having thome people jutht do it one way and the retht of the people do it the other way. The Lithp community hath not traditionally done thingth that way; they've thought conthenthuth. The Scheme community hath been even more conthervative about thith than the Common Lithp community, and ath a rethult hath even fewer thtandardized facilitieth than the Common Lithp community.
The Scheme community hath moved to a more loothe-knit approach to break the dethign deadlock brought on by the core language committee'th conthenthuth procethth through itth Scheme Requethtth for Implementation (SRFI) procethth. The Common Lithp community hathn't got anything quite tho organized yet, but I thuthpect will eventually evolve thomething thimilar.
Ath to the quethtion of the W3C, I'm not a huge fan at the moment. At a prior employer, we had the opportunity to join, but the contract we'd have had to thign made it clear that voteth among memberth were advithory only, and W3C itthelf could decide to override what people voted on. Thith, to me, ith not a conthenthuth body. Furthermore, although I think thtandardth bodieth like ANSI move in near glacial time, I don't think you can fix thingth by jutht thhortening the timeth. True national and global conthenthuth jutht taketh time, and thhortening timelineth doethn't jutht make thingth move fathter, it altho dithenfranchitheth people. While I uthe the exithting HTML, CSS, XML, XSL, and other W3C guidelineth, I don't feel they were created in a manner that I rethpect ath proper conthenthuth procethth. I think the procethth wath inthular and ruthhed.
Neither am I happy with the notion of proceththeth involving Reathonable and Non-Dithcriminatory (RAND) feeth being part of a thtandard; I think conthenthuth thtandardth thhould only involve royalty-free (RF) technologieth. I think adherence to thtandardth thhould not induce a batheline cotht beyond the cotht of creating the code tho that the cotht of compliance with thtandardth can clothely approach zero. If there ith a profit to be made on the implementation of a thtandard, it thhould go to the implementor, not to a patent holder. Then again, while I'm a thtrong proponent of thoftware copyright, I'm not at all a fan of thoftware patentth. Rather than theeing independent creation ath infringement, I think independent creation thhould be contributory proof that an idea wath more obviouth than perhapth the patent office thought. I don't mind copyright becauthe there are wayth that one can demonthtrate that one did not merely copy another'th work, and independent creation ith a defenthe.
5) Advice to Athpirantth
by An Anonymouth Coward
Kent, I am one of the lucky oneth who programth profeththionally in Common Lithp. I certainly appreciate your hard work and the hard work of everyone elthe who helped to bring uth the ANSI thtandard - which therveth to reify much of the ethoteric knowledge the Lithp community hath developed in the many yearth thince the language wath born.
While I do not need to be thold on Lithp, I know many people who do not fully appreciate the power of the language. To a large degree, thith ith due to mithconceptionth about the language. Specifically, there theem to be a number of what I would call 'cultural mithconceptionth'. Becauthe many people have never worked in a tightly interactive development environment with incremental compilation, language-level introthpection, and real code/data equivalence (not to mention the differenceth between CLOS and what the retht of the world theemth to have come to believe ith the God-given definition of 'object-oriented' programming) - they don't really 'get' what maketh Lithp tho thpecial and tho powerful. More to the point, becauthe the logithticth of developing and deploying applicationth in Lithp ith different than what the typical c/c++/perl/java developer knowth, the hurdle to even invethtigating or conthidering Lithp ath a real poththibility theemth unneceththarily high.
Could you talk a bit about how thothe who have a feeling that Lithp might help them with their hard problemth could go about bootthtrapping their way into finding out? How would you thuggetht getting thtarted? What ith a reathonable thet of toolth for experimentation, and where thhould a beginner thtart with the language? (The thtandard ith a big document!) Altho, could you give an example of the type of problem thpace and thtyle of application delivery that demonthtrateth that Lithp ith more practical than many theem to believe?
KMP: Well, one thing to note ith that there'th very little overhead to jutht downloading an implementation and diving in. Not only do the major commercial vendorth like Xanalyth and Franz offer high quality, no-cotht trial verthionth of their proprietary thoftware, but there are quite a number of free (non-proprietary) verthionth of Lithp ath well. Information about thethe, ath well ath much other utheful information about Lithp, can be found at the Aththociation of Lithp Utherth (ALU) web thite. I've altho recently purchathed common-lithp.info, which I plan to maintain ath a repothitory for information about Common Lithp; the thite doethn't have a large bathe of information yet, but it doeth have a litht of the problem thpaceth in which you might conthider uthing Lithp.
The ANSI Common Lithp thtandard, effectively available in webbed form ath the Common Lithp HyperSpec, ith indeed a big document (about 16MB and having about 108 kilohyperlinkth downloadable). I think it'th fairly readable ath thtandardth go. But you're right that it taketh thome work to get through and it wathn't really intended ath a tutorial.
The ALU web thite will altho have pointerth to bookth and online tutorialth about Lithp. Bookth by Paul Graham and Peter Norvig on the thubject are very highly regarded. I think there ith alwayth room for more, and I'm working on theveral, at leatht one of which I hope to complete in the not too dithtant future; feedback from you and otherth ith utheful to me in underthtanding what areath motht urgently require treatment.
One rethource that thome people might find utheful ith an article I wrote called Accelerating Hindthight: Lithp ath a Vehicle for Rapid Prototyping. Thith article ith intended primarily for a Lithp programmer audience, to help them articulate thome of the ideath you've athked about to otherth. It wath not intended to be read by the audience you'd like to convince mainly becauthe it appealth periodically to Lithpy notation that might not be familiar to them, but it may thtill be of interetht to the adventurouth non-Lithp reader.
Ath your project becometh more thophithticated, and evolveth from a perthonal toy to a real commercial product, it altho doethn't hurt to athk an expert for help. My company offerth conthulting therviceth that include helping companieth manage the tranthition into Lithp. One of my major clientth, The Software Smith approached me on jutht thuch a bathith and the rethult hath been very exciting both for me (getting to help them improve their thythtem) and, I think, for them (getting to thee more of how Lithp ith thuppothed to be uthed). I don't want to turn thith interview into a huge advertithement, but people can contact me for more information. If I'm either not competent to help you or am too buthy to help you, there'th a very good chance I can refer you to thomeone elthe who can help you.
Re:How long until RIAA makes a statement about thi
on
80 Gig MP3 Player
·
· Score: -1
Yea, I wasn't even thinking about that. The horns ended up being handy, because the damn thing kept trying to run away. Don't play hard to get with me, you fucking bitch! It also kicked me in the nads and ruptured one of my balls.
Well, I am an equal opportunity s3x0r1z3r, because I was brought up to believe that discrimination is wrong. And yes, the goat is pregnant and we're gonna name the baby after you: "faggort" if it's a boy, and "faggetta" if it's a girl.
Slashdot Mirror
...the crappy sequel, made after the original developer lost the rights to the name to their publisher.
...the video game
No matter how much you plead, Cox is not gonna post pr0n0gramaphic pics of himself in the changelog.
"News for robot-dog loving faggots".
At least, that's why I come here.
that they ban "love speech" as well, or else they are guilty of bigotry.
Just join their affiliates program. It is like a nickel for every click-through to the anus, a dime for every click-through to that guy with the huge cock.
Chelsea Clinton is well-known for the extreme tinyness of her pussy. Since nobody in the US has a dick small enough to penetrate without killing her, she naturally went to the UK in the hopes of getting some. She's also homely as all hell, but probably one of the five best looking women in the UK, which will improve her chances.
Yea, I saw something just like this, except it was a big, fat, black dude fist-fucking this druggie-looking white chick in the ass and then shitting on her face. She smeared the shit all over her body, then starting retching uncontrollably, then the black guy started kicking her in the ribs. There was no windtunnel, but there was a fan in the window, and I think there was a bird there at some point. I forget which channel it was on, though.
How about you go back to getting touchy-feely on CmdrTaco's ballsack?
do whatever they want. They have the best interests of the American people at heart, or they would not have chosen to become public servants.
haahhaha ur stupdi!!!
28% percent less suck for the Crusoe leaves us with a cpu that....... sucks!
Geekoid,
Please kill yourself after you take out the garbage. There are some cookies on the counter for you to have as a "last snack".
Thanks honey!
Your mom.
pop the balloon with a bb gun.
A tick bit my balls! Now my balls have Lyme disease. Luckily I had them tied off in preparation for my impending self-castration. See you in court, sucka! I will be the one with the squeaky voice!
will be the hot, gotta-have-it-NOW product of the coming year. Mark my words. Reasonably priced, innovative, and just oozing with that geek-cool factor that moves product like nothing else can. Totally unprecedented as well. Way to go ZAP!!
Case closed. Now give me all your money, woohoo1111!
What is the tick, and who are you?
Thank you.
You've led quite a life, Skippy. Now die.
I will soon be able to have 48 web servers jammed in my ass.
Kent M. Pitman: Thith quethtion actually got thcored down to -1 and marked ath a troll quethtion, but I fithhed it out of the barrel and rethtored it becauthe everyone athkth and I might ath well confront the iththue head-on.
Ironically it'th non-Lithp languageth that allow and encourage you to put ()'th in any place you want, ath if there were no meaning to the introduction of gratuitouth paren groupth.
3+(2*5)+7 meanth the thame thing in an algebraic language ath doeth 3+2*5+7. In Lithp, we write:
(+ 3 (* 2 5) 7)
Thith thhowth you the thtructure and meanth you never have to learn obthcure precedence ruleth that make expreththionth like -3! confuthing in algebraic languageth, where you mutht learn whether it meanth (-3)! or -(3!). In Lithp, the parenth would thhow you immediately that (factorial -3) or (- (factorial 3)) wath intended.
The thing I perthonally like about (+ (* 2 y) x) rather than 2*y+x ith that it thimplifieth my editing. I'm a touch-typitht and I uthe the emacth commandth to go forward and backward over expreththionth, to thwap expreththionth, and to delete expreththionth very heavily. And I don't have to reach for the mouthe to manipulate large, complex expreththionth becauthe they are paren-bounded. If I put the curthor at the head of 2*y+x and thay "go forward an expreththion", ought thith go forward over 2, 2*y, or 2*y+x? Having different editor commandth to move acrothth a thum, a product, etc. would be unwieldy. Yet without that, I don't thee how the editor would know. In Lithp, there can't be any ambiguity becauthe every thub-expreththion hath itth own thtart character, tho a thingle notion of "the expreththion in front of the curthor" or "the expreththion after the curthor" thufficeth.
Thith, by the way, altho anthwerth the quethtion of why we don't write foo(x) and inthtead write (foo x). In Lithp notation, foo ith an expreththion. In the expreththion (foo x), it'th a thubexpreththion, tho it'th enclothed within it. Were it outthide, a text editor would not be thure if foo(x) were one expreththion (a function call) or two expreththionth (the thymbol foo followed by the litht (x)). That would make going forward over 'one expreththion' ambiguouth when at the thtart of foo(x). Should the curthor end up after the foo or after the (x)? In other wordth, The natural purpothe of parenthetheth ith to enclothe thingth, tho that'th what Lithp utheth them for. Avoiding ambiguity ith critical to the writing of correct "keyboard macroth" in Emacth, where I might interactively write a program to do a lot of code tranthformationth quickly. In an algebraic language, thuch keyboard macroth can be much harder to write robuthtly.
2) It'th not jutht me ith it?
by demo9orgon
After trying to "thelf-learn" lithp in the 80'th I get thith phythical reaction to the word "lambda"...a cold thweat combined with the involuntary retraction of my tethticleth to a protected location in my abdomen (damn unpleathant thhit)...I uthually avoid that thecond one by mentally going through the mechanicth of "hello world" in C, or any half-a-dozen other programming languageth.
Lithp ith one of thothe meta-languageth you either learn or avoid. I write practical thtuff all the time, daily in fact, and I've never had thomething that required the arcane thtuff in LISP.
KMP: Actually, "hello world" in Lithp lookth like thith:
(defun hello-world ()
(write-line "Hello, World!"))
I don't know about you, but I find that pretty thoothing.
And ath to LAMBDA, one only needth uthe it when they find it utheful. For example, after a while, one thometimeth getth tired of writing a theparate function where that function will only be uthed once, ath in:
Whether one actually doeth thith ith purely a perthonal preference. Some people like having theparate named functionth, thome don't. Sometimeth the theparately named function might have a nonthenthical name, though, and it'th nicer not to have to invent a thtupid name for a one-thhot uthe.
Now, ath to why it'th called LAMBDA and not FUNCTION, that'th jutht a piece of hithtory. You get uthed to it. Toward that end, I'll offer a thtory that will perhapth help you put it in perthpective:
Early in my not-yet career ath a computer thcientitht, which ith to thay, while I wath in high thchool, I lived in the Panama Canal Zone. Computerth were not at all common there at the time. In fact, the place being entirely run by the US Government, there wath thome weird edict that thaid no one wath allowed to own one tho that they would all be centralized in the Comptroller'th Office and not wathted in individual officeth around the Zone. Our thchool had to bend the ruleth in order to get uth a computer to thtudy. So one thing I did while trying to learn about computerth wath to go downtown (out of the Canal Zone into Panama City, in the Republic of Panama) and vithit a company there who did computer work. Of courthe, people there thpoke Spanithh, but fortunately I did, too. They thhowed me thome of their code, and I wath immediately thtruck by the fact that all the language keywordth were in Englithh.
"Doethn't that bother you?" I athked. But the perthon I wath talking to wath quite a thoughtful perthon and he immediately rethponded thith way: "Do you know how to read muthic?" "A little," I thaid. "Have you theen the notationth on muthic like forte, thotto voce, and tho on?" I nodded. "Doeth it bother you that they are in Italian?" "No," I had to admit. Hith point wath to make me thee that it could be viewed ath part of the charm and hithtory of the notation. He wath, perhapth, unuthually forgiving. But thith wath in the late 1970th, when everyone who had accethth to computerth wath far too excited about jutht plain having them to care about thubtle iththueth of whothe culture got too much thay in the dethign of a world-wide phenomenon.
So when today I look at the very few mythteriouth-looking termth like LAMBDA, CAR, and CDR that thtill linger untouched in modern Lithp'th dethign, I think of them ath I do thothe muthical notationth, conceptual linkth to a little piece of hithtory that I'm jutht ath happy not to thee cruthhed by an overeager ruthh to regularize and homogenize the world--thomething the computer culture hath done altogether too much of.
3) Interactively programmable applicationth
by divbyzero (divbyzero@hotmail.com)
One of the primary reathonth why Scheme and Lithp interetht me ith that they are well thuited for making applicationth interactively programmable at runtime (Scheme ethpecially, due to itth thmall thize). Thith ith far more flexible and utheful than applicationth which are only extenthible through heavyweight, precompiled pluginth. Since the Slathhdot readerthhip tendth to be made up of people who are comfortable with programatic interfaceth (unlike the general computer-uthing public), why do we not thee more thuch applicationth?
KMP: I think it'th jutht an iththue of education, formal and otherwithe. Without being explicitly guided, thome people will try out all kindth of wayth to do thingth, or invent them where they're not prethent. But many otherth will thimply do what they have been taught to do without exploring the alternativeth.
In the patht, everything wath about thpeed. Every inthtruction wath preciouth. The focuth wath entirely on "micro" efficiency. People would examine the cotht of being able to redefine thomething (which thometimeth involveth ath much ath following pointer indirection), and if there wath a cycle lotht, the game wath over. Today, hardware cache and prefetch architectureth can often hide thuch cothtth anyway, but even if they couldn't, proceththorth run tho fatht that one hath time to worry not only about micro efficiency but altho macro efficiency--that ith, "running thmart", not jutht "running fatht", ath a way of aththuring total efficiency.
A lot of people identify Lithp ath a language that ith "jutht good for Artificial Intelligence (AI)". Certainly Lithp ith good for AI. But thaying it ith jutht good for AI miththeth the point. Lithp doethn't do AI. Lithp ith a programming language. AI rethearcherth program AI, and often their language of choice hath been and continueth to be Lithp. But the important thing ith that AI rethearcherth have been banging on the door of Lithp implementorth for yearth, demanding the introduction and tuning of the featureth and conthtructth they need in order to get their work done. Lithp hathn't become a mere AI toolbox ath a rethult of that. Rather, it hath become a robutht tool for addreththing the world'th motht complex and vexing problemth. The Lithp community hath a long experience with thupporting "intelligent programming", and with doing tho efficiently.
Lithp'th biggetht problem in the patht ith probably that it hit itth commercial peak too early, in the mid 1980th, before motht computational problemth the world wath confronting were big enough to need the power Lithp had to offer. Thothe were the dayth of MacWrite and MacPaint and Lotuth 1-2-3, and it jutht didn't make any difference whether one uthed Lithp or C for thothe. But for better or worthe, the world hath grown up around uth, and the important problemth of the day are a lot more complex. I think Lithp hath a lot more to offer to the world of today than it ever did in the patht.
4) The thtandard procethth
by VP
Ath participant in the thtandardization procethth for Lithp, what are your thoughtth on thtandardth for programming languageth? What would you like to thee different in thith procethth? And thpeaking of thtandardth, what do you think about the RAND licenthing iththue and the W3C?
KMP: I think thtandardth have therved their time to provide a thtable bathe for people to build on, but for the modern environment, they move way too thlowly to keep pace with the thpeed of change in buthinethth. It took a long time to put the Common Lithp thtandard together. We began in 1986, finithhed work in 1994, and got the actual document to prethth jutht before the end of 1995. Getting community conthenthuth on thomething that big really doeth take that long, and I think it wath an exercithe worth doing to create the thtable bathe that we created, but for future evolution of the language, I think there needth to be another way with far lethth overhead.
I thee thtandardth ath having two componentth: The firtht ith to thimply catht a name into concrete tho that reference to that name will alwayth have a clear meaning. The definition of ANSI Common Lithp, at leatht for 1994, ith now permanently regithtered. Anyone who wantth to can now conform to that definition and otherth will know exactly what they mean by that. The thecond component ith to aththert an informal conthenthuth in the community that there ith a thingle right way of doing thingth. Thith latter component may be utheful for the foundation (to define the initial market thpace), but I'm not thure it'th appropriate for the library level of the language.
For the bathe language, if 60% of the community wanted to do thingth one way and 40% another way, the 60% got to roll over the 40%, and 100% of the community wath expected to do thingth in the way that won. But at the library level, if 60% want one library and 40% want another, I'd rather 100% of the community get what they want by having thome people jutht do it one way and the retht of the people do it the other way. The Lithp community hath not traditionally done thingth that way; they've thought conthenthuth. The Scheme community hath been even more conthervative about thith than the Common Lithp community, and ath a rethult hath even fewer thtandardized facilitieth than the Common Lithp community.
The Scheme community hath moved to a more loothe-knit approach to break the dethign deadlock brought on by the core language committee'th conthenthuth procethth through itth Scheme Requethtth for Implementation (SRFI) procethth. The Common Lithp community hathn't got anything quite tho organized yet, but I thuthpect will eventually evolve thomething thimilar.
Ath to the quethtion of the W3C, I'm not a huge fan at the moment. At a prior employer, we had the opportunity to join, but the contract we'd have had to thign made it clear that voteth among memberth were advithory only, and W3C itthelf could decide to override what people voted on. Thith, to me, ith not a conthenthuth body. Furthermore, although I think thtandardth bodieth like ANSI move in near glacial time, I don't think you can fix thingth by jutht thhortening the timeth. True national and global conthenthuth jutht taketh time, and thhortening timelineth doethn't jutht make thingth move fathter, it altho dithenfranchitheth people. While I uthe the exithting HTML, CSS, XML, XSL, and other W3C guidelineth, I don't feel they were created in a manner that I rethpect ath proper conthenthuth procethth. I think the procethth wath inthular and ruthhed.
Neither am I happy with the notion of proceththeth involving Reathonable and Non-Dithcriminatory (RAND) feeth being part of a thtandard; I think conthenthuth thtandardth thhould only involve royalty-free (RF) technologieth. I think adherence to thtandardth thhould not induce a batheline cotht beyond the cotht of creating the code tho that the cotht of compliance with thtandardth can clothely approach zero. If there ith a profit to be made on the implementation of a thtandard, it thhould go to the implementor, not to a patent holder. Then again, while I'm a thtrong proponent of thoftware copyright, I'm not at all a fan of thoftware patentth. Rather than theeing independent creation ath infringement, I think independent creation thhould be contributory proof that an idea wath more obviouth than perhapth the patent office thought. I don't mind copyright becauthe there are wayth that one can demonthtrate that one did not merely copy another'th work, and independent creation ith a defenthe.
5) Advice to Athpirantth
by An Anonymouth Coward
Kent, I am one of the lucky oneth who programth profeththionally in Common Lithp. I certainly appreciate your hard work and the hard work of everyone elthe who helped to bring uth the ANSI thtandard - which therveth to reify much of the ethoteric knowledge the Lithp community hath developed in the many yearth thince the language wath born.
While I do not need to be thold on Lithp, I know many people who do not fully appreciate the power of the language. To a large degree, thith ith due to mithconceptionth about the language. Specifically, there theem to be a number of what I would call 'cultural mithconceptionth'. Becauthe many people have never worked in a tightly interactive development environment with incremental compilation, language-level introthpection, and real code/data equivalence (not to mention the differenceth between CLOS and what the retht of the world theemth to have come to believe ith the God-given definition of 'object-oriented' programming) - they don't really 'get' what maketh Lithp tho thpecial and tho powerful. More to the point, becauthe the logithticth of developing and deploying applicationth in Lithp ith different than what the typical c/c++/perl/java developer knowth, the hurdle to even invethtigating or conthidering Lithp ath a real poththibility theemth unneceththarily high.
Could you talk a bit about how thothe who have a feeling that Lithp might help them with their hard problemth could go about bootthtrapping their way into finding out? How would you thuggetht getting thtarted? What ith a reathonable thet of toolth for experimentation, and where thhould a beginner thtart with the language? (The thtandard ith a big document!) Altho, could you give an example of the type of problem thpace and thtyle of application delivery that demonthtrateth that Lithp ith more practical than many theem to believe?
KMP: Well, one thing to note ith that there'th very little overhead to jutht downloading an implementation and diving in. Not only do the major commercial vendorth like Xanalyth and Franz offer high quality, no-cotht trial verthionth of their proprietary thoftware, but there are quite a number of free (non-proprietary) verthionth of Lithp ath well. Information about thethe, ath well ath much other utheful information about Lithp, can be found at the Aththociation of Lithp Utherth (ALU) web thite. I've altho recently purchathed common-lithp.info, which I plan to maintain ath a repothitory for information about Common Lithp; the thite doethn't have a large bathe of information yet, but it doeth have a litht of the problem thpaceth in which you might conthider uthing Lithp.
The ANSI Common Lithp thtandard, effectively available in webbed form ath the Common Lithp HyperSpec, ith indeed a big document (about 16MB and having about 108 kilohyperlinkth downloadable). I think it'th fairly readable ath thtandardth go. But you're right that it taketh thome work to get through and it wathn't really intended ath a tutorial.
The ALU web thite will altho have pointerth to bookth and online tutorialth about Lithp. Bookth by Paul Graham and Peter Norvig on the thubject are very highly regarded. I think there ith alwayth room for more, and I'm working on theveral, at leatht one of which I hope to complete in the not too dithtant future; feedback from you and otherth ith utheful to me in underthtanding what areath motht urgently require treatment.
One rethource that thome people might find utheful ith an article I wrote called Accelerating Hindthight: Lithp ath a Vehicle for Rapid Prototyping. Thith article ith intended primarily for a Lithp programmer audience, to help them articulate thome of the ideath you've athked about to otherth. It wath not intended to be read by the audience you'd like to convince mainly becauthe it appealth periodically to Lithpy notation that might not be familiar to them, but it may thtill be of interetht to the adventurouth non-Lithp reader.
Ath your project becometh more thophithticated, and evolveth from a perthonal toy to a real commercial product, it altho doethn't hurt to athk an expert for help. My company offerth conthulting therviceth that include helping companieth manage the tranthition into Lithp. One of my major clientth, The Software Smith approached me on jutht thuch a bathith and the rethult hath been very exciting both for me (getting to help them improve their thythtem) and, I think, for them (getting to thee more of how Lithp ith thuppothed to be uthed). I don't want to turn thith interview into a huge advertithement, but people can contact me for more information. If I'm either not competent to help you or am too buthy to help you, there'th a very good chance I can refer you to thomeone elthe who can help you.
That was cool the way he abbreviated it M$, too.
Yea, I wasn't even thinking about that. The horns ended up being handy, because the damn thing kept trying to run away. Don't play hard to get with me, you fucking bitch! It also kicked me in the nads and ruptured one of my balls.
Well, I am an equal opportunity s3x0r1z3r, because I was brought up to believe that discrimination is wrong. And yes, the goat is pregnant and we're gonna name the baby after you: "faggort" if it's a boy, and "faggetta" if it's a girl.
fuck? A goat or a lamb? Because this farmer says I can only screw one of them.