From tfp2007 at shu.edu Fri Dec 1 18:38:56 2006 From: tfp2007 at shu.edu (TFP 2007) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:38:56 -0500 Subject: [chicago-lisp] First Call for Papers: TFP 2007, New York Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS Trends in Functional Programming 2007 New York, USA April 2-4, 2007 http://cs.shu.edu/tfp2007/ OR http://tltc.shu.edu/tfp2007/ The symposium on Trends in Functional Programming (TFP) is an international forum for researchers with interests in all aspects of functional programming languages, focusing on providing a broad view of current and future trends in Functional Programming. It aspires to be a lively environment for presenting the latest research results through acceptance by extended abstracts. A formal post-symposium refereeing process then selects the best articles presented at the symposium for publication in a high-profile volume. TFP 2007 is co-hosted by Seton Hall University and The City College of New York (CCNY) and will be held in New York, USA, April 2-4, 2007 at the CCNY campus. SCOPE OF THE SYMPOSIUM The symposium recognizes that new trends may arise through various routes. As part of the Symposium's focus on trends we therefore identify the following five article categories. High-quality articles are solicited in any of these categories: Research Articles leading-edge, previously unpublished research work Position Articles on what new trends should or should not be Project Articles descriptions of recently started new projects Evaluation Articles what lessons can be drawn from a finished project Overview Articles summarizing work with respect to a trendy subject Articles must be original and not submitted for simultaneous publication to any other forum. They may consider any aspect of functional programming: theoretical, implementation-oriented, or more experience-oriented. Applications of functional programming techniques to other languages are also within the scope of the symposium. Articles on the following subject areas are particularly welcomed: o Dependently Typed Functional Programming o Validation and Verification of Functional Programs o Debugging for Functional Languages o Functional Programming and Security o Functional Programming and Mobility o Functional Programming to Animate/Prototype/Implement Systems from Formal or Semi-Formal Specifications o Functional Languages for Telecommunications Applications o Functional Languages for Embedded Systems o Functional Programming Applied to Global Computing o Functional GRIDs o Functional Programming Ideas in Imperative or Object-Oriented Settings (and the converse) o Interoperability with Imperative Programming Languages o Novel Memory Management Techniques o Parallel/Concurrent Functional Languages o Program Transformation Techniques o Empirical Performance Studies o Abstract/Virtual Machines and Compilers for Functional Languages o New Implementation Strategies o any new emerging trend in the functional programming area If you are in doubt on whether your article is within the scope of TFP, please contact the TFP 2007 program chair, Marco T. Morazan, at tfp2007 at shu.edu. SUBMISSION AND DRAFT PROCEEDINGS Acceptance of articles for presentation at the symposium is based on the review of extended abstracts (6 to 10 pages in length) by the program committee. Accepted abstracts are to be completed to full papers before the symposium for publication in the draft proceedings and on-line. Further details can be found at the TFP 2007 website. POST-SYMPOSIUM REFEREEING AND PUBLICATION In addition to the draft symposium proceedings, we intend to continue the TFP tradition of publishing a high-quality subset of contributions in the Intellect series on Trends in Functional Programming. IMPORTANT DATES Abstract Submission: February 1, 2007 Notification of Acceptance: February 20, 2007 Registration Deadline: March 2, 2007 Camera Ready Full Paper Due: March 9, 2007 TFP Symposium: April 2-4, 2007 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE John Clements California Polytechnic State University, USA Marko van Eekelen Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands Benjamin Goldberg New York University, USA Kevin Hammond University of St. Andrews, UK Patricia Johann Rutgers University, USA Hans-Wolfgang Loidl Ludwig-Maximilians Universit?t M?nchen, Germany Rita Loogen Philipps-Universit?t Marburg, Germany Greg Michaelson Heriot-Watt University, UK Marco T. Moraz?n (Chair) Seton Hall University, USA Henrik Nilsson University of Nottingham, UK Chris Okasaki United States Military Academy at West Point, USA Rex Page University of Oklahoma, USA Ricardo Pena Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Benjamin C. Pierce University of Pennsylvania, USA John Reppy University of Chicago, USA Ulrik P. Schultz University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Clara Segura Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Jocelyn S?rot Universit? Blaise Pascal, France Zhong Shao Yale University, USA Olin Shivers Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Phil Trinder Heriot-Watt University, UK David Walker Princeton University, USA ORGANIZATION Symposium Chair: Henrik Nilsson, University of Nottingham, UK Programme Chair: Marco T. Morazan, Seton Hall University, USA Treasurer: Greg Michaelson, Heriot-Watt University, UK Local Arrangements: Marco T. Morazan, Seton Hall University, USA ************************************************************************************ Dr. Marco T. Morazan TFP 2007 Program Committee Chair http://tltc.shu.edu/tfp2007/ http://cs.shu.edu/tfp2007/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dariggs at humnet.ucla.edu Sun Dec 3 01:33:38 2006 From: dariggs at humnet.ucla.edu (David Riggs) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:33:38 -0500 Subject: [chicago-lisp] quoted list modification-- "let" does not protect values Message-ID: <45722972.9060604@humnet.ucla.edu> Dear Lispers, I want to have an alist to keep track of occurances of items in a buffer I am searching. So I define a function to do that, and start off with a "let" to set an alist with the strings I am searching for, setting the crd to zero for each. But each time I invoke the function, the old values of the cdr are remembered. For example (defun mytest () (interactive) (let ((dot '("a" . 0)) (n 0)) (setcdr dot (1+ (cdr dot))) (setq n (1+ n)) (print dot)(print n) )) Will increase output ("a" . 1) 1, then ("a" . 2) 1 etc, increasing by one each call (though the "n" value is always reset to 0). If I change the let to be (let ((dot (cons "a" 0)) (n 0)) Then it works as expected, resetting to zero each time. Why does a function which sets a let declaired variable to a quoted alist not reset to inittial value each time it is called? Clearly I am quite unclear about something very fundamental. Would anyone like to straighten me out? Thanks, David Riggs, Oberlin Ohio From dkixk at earthlink.net Sun Dec 3 23:12:25 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (Damien Kick) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 17:12:25 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) Message-ID: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> John Quigley gave a presentation on using SLIME with SBCL on a Debian system yesterday during the Chicago LUG meeting. There is a PDF file version of his presentation but I forgot to jot down the URL for it. John, perhaps you'd send it to the list? Since the presentation was made using Debain, and therefore used apt-get, somebody asked about getting the packages if one didn't use Debian. The following two sites are good places for lots of general information about lisp and have links to all of the packages mentioned during the presentation: . After the presentation, John and four of us who came to the meeting mostly because of our interest in the chicago-lisp group got together for a brief chat about chicago-lisp. We talked about what to do going forward and I believe that the consensus was to try to start meeting on a more regular basis. Apparently the space being used for the CLUG meetings would be available for other chicago-lisp gatherings. John asked if everyone was mostly interested in lisp in particular or rather a broader range of topics, for instance functional languages such as Scheme or ML. There was a bit of difference of opinion on this topic and I think it might still be a bit of an open question. One suggestion was that the group might want to start host a web-site, perhaps as an excuse for a group project. A wiki as well as cliki and AllegroServer were discussed. Another idea was to adopt a project from Common Lisp Gardeners . For those who might not be familiar with the CL Gardeners (ibid): > A group of people intending to "tend the Common Lisp Garden". Their > goal is two-fold : improving the attractiveness of CL for people > who are considering using it, and providing those who want to learn > the language with a plethora of small projects, so that they can > learn it by practicing it, yet in a useful way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ssrat at mailbag.com Mon Dec 4 19:43:45 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:43:45 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <45747A71.4060609@mailbag.com> Damien Kick wrote: > John Quigley gave a presentation on using SLIME with SBCL on a > Debian system yesterday during the Chicago LUG meeting. I saw it, and it was delightful. I remembered enough of it to be able to get SLIME working for me on Mac OS X with SBCL and Aquamacs Emacs... I also managed (in part) to get Viper mode working with SLIME. VIPER is "Viper Is a Package for Emacs Rebels" :-) It's a vi emulation mode for Emacs designed for those who don't necessarily want to use Emacs commands but want to stick with vi. > After the presentation, John and four of us who came to the meeting > mostly because of our interest in the chicago-lisp group got > together for a brief chat about chicago-lisp. I missed the LISP meeting, even though I was there for the other LUG presentations (being a Linux/UNIX kind of fellow, the LUG was as much fun as the LISP meeting....) > John asked if everyone was mostly > interested in lisp in particular or rather a broader range of > topics, for instance functional languages such as Scheme or ML. > There was a bit of difference of opinion on this topic and I think > it might still be a bit of an open question. I spoke with John afterwards, and that sounds about right. Personally, I'm interested in LISP in particular - and not in AI. > One suggestion was > that the group might want to start host a web-site, perhaps as an > excuse for a group project. I tried Araneida; if AllegroServe is already chosen, that's fine; if not, Araneida might be fun. It *is* an open source project after all, and it works fine on SBCL (another open source project...). Araneida is the web server driving CLiki. Would it be possible to create a SLIME link to a development web server/LISP image at the hosting site? Sounds like that would be fantastic - and it is possible over SSH (found a link describing that very thing...) From ssrat at mailbag.com Mon Dec 4 19:48:12 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:48:12 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] LISP Gardeners Message-ID: <45747B7C.2020906@mailbag.com> The list of projects is at the ALU site: http://wiki.alu.org/Gardeners_Projects From jquigley at jquigley.com Mon Dec 4 23:03:22 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:03:22 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> Folks: Sorry for chiming in late here. Let me give the minutes of the meeting, in brief, first: Chicago Lisp: 2006-12-02 ------------------------------------------ In attendance: John, Michael, Peter, Damien, John Topic: Group's Focus - general trend of feeling was that we should remain a Lisp group - no need to focus on Lisp entirely, we're open to talks and projects that aren't necessarily Lisp specific * that said, most of us are here because we have a particular fondness for Lisp itself * for this reason, we will remain on the Chicago Lisp mailing list for the foreseeable future - try to attract commercial entities, we want to hear of the Lisp jobs! Topic: Meetings - small physical meetings to occur in tandem with the Chicago LUG until we're able to establish our own time/date/space * this will be directly dependent upon how well we reach out to other communities * we should work on fostering a community of folks, and establishing ourselves as independent to the LUG - we'll need interesting presentations to make the meetings have purpose and to attract new memberes * possible presentations ideas: + discussion/explanation of small projects that members are working on + talks regarding aspects of Lisp that were ahead of their time (such as aspect-oriented programming) Topic: Projects - possible collaborative work at Lisp Gardeners - work on setting up a website with a Lisp back-end Topic: Todo - acquire group domain name - gather info/requirements for a website that employs Lips on the backend (AllegroServe, mod_lisp?) - reach out to other dev groups, acquire interest - work on contacting interesting speakers that will help us attract members ------------ SNIP --------------- So, the meeting lasted about 20 or 30 minutes, and we had some nice discussion amongst ourselves. I'm looking forward to getting to know everyone and working on interesting code. Damien Kick wrote: > There is a PDF file version of his presentation but I forgot to jot > down the URL for it. That URL is: http://www.jquigley.com/files/beginners-lisp.tar.bz2 > Apparently the space being used for the CLUG > meetings would be available for other chicago-lisp gatherings. Indeed, let's plan on meeting in tandem with the Chicago LUG, at least at the outset. When we have some more members and have had time to think things through, we'll probably be able to establish ourselves independently, with our own meeting date, time and place. Or, indeed, perhaps we stay closely aligned with the LUG for the foreseeable future. This leaves open the possibility of interesting cross-group pollination. I'm open to either, or other, possibilities. > if everyone was mostly interested in lisp in particular or rather > a broader range of topics, for instance functional languages such as > Scheme or ML. There was a bit of difference of opinion on this topic > and I think it might still be a bit of an open question. I think the general feeling is that we should remain as the Chicago Lisp. I'm happy with that, though I do recognize the problems associated with a group becoming 'pigeon-holed;' if you meet long enough, there's only so many topics one can discuss about a certain technology. The way I see it, the group could also become The Chicago Lisp and: - Programming Language Group (ala, Lambda The Ultimate) - Artificial Intelligence Group (ala, AAIA) - Functional Language Group (ala, RHS was to become?) I personally like the sound of the Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group. What I just realized: if that were acronym-ized, it might become ChiLPL (which could be pronounced "chill pill" =) I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say on this. Ideally, we get this resolved ASAP. I'd like for us to be galvanized behind a definitive name in the very short term. We need a domain name, which I'm happy to fork over the $20 for if that's agreeable with everyone. One suggestion > was that the group might want to start host a web-site, perhaps as an > excuse for a group project. A wiki as well as cliki > and AllegroServer > were discussed. > Another idea was to adopt a project from Common Lisp Gardeners I thought this was a particularly well-conceived idea, and I'm already on their mailing list. I invite other Chicago Lispniks to join me there. This email is already plenty long. I've got a lot of other things to say, but I'll explore those ideas in other, more concise emails. Thanks again everyone! Regards, John Quigley From jquigley at jquigley.com Mon Dec 4 23:15:37 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:15:37 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project: website Message-ID: <4574AC19.2040809@jquigley.com> Folks: Alright, so all of the meeting attendees seemed to be in agreement with one another on the idea of collaborating on some kind of web software to get our site operational. We'd be interested in getting confirmation from those of you who couldn't join us physically this past Saturday. Now, I don't know very much about web development, particularly in the context of Lisp, so I'm looking forward to gaining better insight. My first question: everyone seemed interested in AllegroServe, and there were no mentions of mod_lisp. Any reasons for this, aside from the fact that Allegro is itself written in Lisp? - John Quigley From jquigley at jquigley.com Mon Dec 4 23:19:05 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:19:05 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project: website In-Reply-To: <4574AC19.2040809@jquigley.com> References: <4574AC19.2040809@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <4574ACE9.2030700@jquigley.com> Wiseman posted briefly on mod_lisp, with some good links: http://lemonodor.com/archives/2003_02.html I'd be interested in using AllegroServe because I've never run it before, fwiw. - John Quigley From ssrat at mailbag.com Mon Dec 4 23:48:22 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:48:22 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project: website In-Reply-To: <4574AC19.2040809@jquigley.com> References: <4574AC19.2040809@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <4574B3C6.3000703@mailbag.com> John Quigley wrote: > Now, I don't know very much about web development, particularly in the > context of Lisp, so I'm looking forward to gaining better insight. My > first question: everyone seemed interested in AllegroServe, and there > were no mentions of mod_lisp. Any reasons for this, aside from the fact > that Allegro is itself written in Lisp? I don't know about AllegroServe. When I tried mod_lisp, it turned out to be (for better or worse) a way of linking Apache to a running LISP instance. At the time, I was looking for items similar to mod_perl and mod_ruby: permitting the running of LISP inside of Apache. I tried (and liked) Araneida; any reason why anyone didn't mention it? Araneida is the web server that is driving CLiki - and is developed by the same person. I put it on SBCL and it worked just fine. From ssrat at mailbag.com Mon Dec 4 23:58:44 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:58:44 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <4574B634.4030205@mailbag.com> John Quigley wrote: > The way I see it, the group could also become The Chicago Lisp and: > > - Programming Language Group (ala, Lambda The Ultimate) > - Artificial Intelligence Group (ala, AAIA) > - Functional Language Group (ala, RHS was to become?) I'm good with names... * Chicago Lispniks * Chicago Lithpers ;-) * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group - that is, Chicago APL Group (heh) * Chicago Area Many Languages Group - that is, CAML Group (heh) * Chicago Lispy Group * Chicago Lispits * Chicago LISPers and Friends * Chicago Area LISPies et al * Chicago LISPit etc. To me, my interest in LISP has never been about AI or functional languages, etc - it was more about the capabilities of it and the programming nature of LISP. OOP on LISP has some interest, but OOP in anything but Ruby and Smalltalk has the feel of being "bolted on" rather than "integrated in" but haven't tried LISP OOP in depth yet. From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:06:29 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:06:29 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/06, John Quigley wrote: > Chicago Lisp: 2006-12-02 > ------------------------------------------ > In attendance: John, Michael, Peter, Damien, John Hey, don't forget me. I was there for the last 3 muinites! heh. Topic: Group's Focus > - general trend of feeling was that we should remain a Lisp group > - no need to focus on Lisp entirely, we're open to talks and projects > that aren't necessarily Lisp specific > * that said, most of us are here because we have a particular fondness > for Lisp itself > * for this reason, we will remain on the Chicago Lisp mailing list > for the foreseeable future > - try to attract commercial entities, we want to hear of the Lisp jobs! > if everyone was mostly interested in lisp in particular or rather > > a broader range of topics, for instance functional languages such as > > Scheme or ML. There was a bit of difference of opinion on this topic > > and I think it might still be a bit of an open question. > > I think the general feeling is that we should remain as the Chicago > Lisp. I'm happy with that, though I do recognize the problems > associated with a group becoming 'pigeon-holed;' if you meet long > enough, there's only so many topics one can discuss about a certain > technology. Hmm, I'm confused. Lets establish some terminology to help clarify: Scheme is a dialect of lisp Common lisp is a dialect of lisp {emacs lisp is too} So let's use "lisp" without any further constraints to refer to the "family" of lisp languages. Now scheme is a impure functional language (i.e. it has a "set" command), just like Common lisp is a impure functional language. I believe ML is a pure functional language. {i don't actually use it though, so don't quote me on that} ---- Now given this, i'm not sure what was just said. heh I would personally prefer having some room for non-lisp languages, but I would still be ok with constraining ourselfs to lisp (i.e. no ML or haskel (or erlang ;) ). I would have a issue though if we were to constrain ourselfs to the common lisp dialect. > I personally like the sound of the Chicago Lisp and Programming Language > Group. What I just realized: if that were acronym-ized, it might become > ChiLPL (which could be pronounced "chill pill" =) > > I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say on this. Ideally, we get > this resolved ASAP. I'd like for us to be galvanized behind a > definitive name in the very short term. Chill pill sounds clever to me. But I don't have any real strong feelings on the name. > Topic: Projects > - possible collaborative work at Lisp Gardeners > - work on setting up a website with a Lisp back-end > One suggestion > > was that the group might want to start host a web-site, perhaps as an > > excuse for a group project. A wiki as well as cliki > > and AllegroServer > > were discussed. Question. Does Allegroserve *require* you to buy allegro common lisp? You might alienate some potential helpers that way. Also as I mentioned before {in person}, having just implemented a wiki in scheme, I would probably be able to give some guidance if you decide to do a wiki. > Another idea was to adopt a project from Common Lisp Gardeners > > I thought this was a particularly well-conceived idea, and I'm already > on their mailing list. I invite other Chicago Lispniks to join me there. This is probably too big of a project, but I'll toss out the idea anyway. What about writing a common lisp "interpreter" in scheme? Then using that platform, people could write common lisp or scheme code. All the standard common lisp libraries could then be available to scheme programs, and would be "continuation safe" (unlike most ffi's). And all the scheme features, and scheme libraries could easily be available to the "interpreted" common lisp code. I.E try to unite the 2 lisp worlds. :) Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From list at phaedrusdeinus.org Tue Dec 5 15:45:49 2006 From: list at phaedrusdeinus.org (johnnnnnnn) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:45:49 +0000 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <20061205154548.GA1595@performics.com> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:06:29PM -0600, Corey Sweeney wrote: > Now scheme is a impure functional language (i.e. it has a "set" command), > just like Common lisp is a impure functional language. > I believe ML is a pure functional language. {i don't actually use it though, > so don't quote me on that} ML is impure, as is caml, OCaml, and F#. Haskell's probably the most popular purely functional language. There's also Clean, Miranda, and Curry. -johnnnnnnn From jquigley at jquigley.com Thu Dec 7 00:16:11 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:16:11 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name Message-ID: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> Okay, to move things along, let's take a vote for our group's name. These are the candidates: * Chicago Lispniks * Chicago Lithpers * Chicago Artificial Intelligence Group * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group (Chicago APL Group) * Chicago Area Many Languages Group (CAML Group) * Chicago Lispy Group * Chicago Functional Language Group * Chicago Lispits * Chicago LISPers and Friends * Chicago Area LISPies et al * Chicago LISPit * Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group (ChiLPL - "chill pill") Please follow up in this thread with a blank response except for one of the above names. If you have thoughts, concerns, issues, please start another thread. Thanks! - John Quigley From jquigley at jquigley.com Thu Dec 7 00:17:01 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:17:01 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <45775D7D.9010001@jquigley.com> Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group (ChiLPL - "chill pill") From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 04:57:15 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:57:15 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45775D7D.9010001@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <45775D7D.9010001@jquigley.com> Message-ID: Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group (ChiLPL - "chill pill") Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ssrat at mailbag.com Thu Dec 7 07:57:21 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:57:21 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name Message-ID: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> > * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group (Chicago APL Group) > * Chicago Area Many Languages Group (CAML Group) Gasp! You actually included these ;-) CAML is a different computer language entirely, as is APL.... No relations to LISP... From ssrat at mailbag.com Thu Dec 7 07:59:19 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:59:19 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <4577C9D7.3050402@mailbag.com> Chicago LISPers and Friends From jquigley at jquigley.com Thu Dec 7 08:37:50 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:37:50 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name In-Reply-To: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> References: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <4577D2DE.50805@jquigley.com> David Douthitt wrote: > Gasp! You actually included these ;-) > > CAML is a different computer language entirely, as is APL.... No > relations to LISP... What can I say, they were too witty simply to be discarded. Although I didn't vote for yours, I had much-needed laugh over the less serious ones, particularly APL and Lithpers =) I'll be looking to you when next I need a name for something. - John Quigley From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 17:59:32 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:59:32 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name In-Reply-To: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> References: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> Message-ID: On 12/7/06, David Douthitt wrote: > > > * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group (Chicago APL Group) > > * Chicago Area Many Languages Group (CAML Group) > > Gasp! You actually included these ;-) > > CAML is a different computer language entirely, as is APL.... No > relations to LISP... > If you want it related to LISP, we could be: Lake Inter-area Symbolic Programming group (LISP Group :) Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsears at riverglassinc.com Thu Dec 7 19:22:14 2006 From: dsears at riverglassinc.com (Duane Searsmith) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:22:14 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name In-Reply-To: References: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <457869E6.3050903@riverglassinc.com> CALICO Chicago Area LIsp Community Org CLAN Chicago Lisp Afficianados Network MALE Mid America Lisp Enthusiasts :-) CLEO Chicago Lisp Enthusiasts Org CREOLE Chicago REgional Org of Lisp Enthusiasts CLU Chicago Lisp Users CLUE Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts CASTLE Chicago Area SocieTy of Lisp Enthusiasts -- Duane Corey Sweeney wrote: > > On 12/7/06, *David Douthitt* > wrote: > > > * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group (Chicago APL Group) > > * Chicago Area Many Languages Group (CAML Group) > > Gasp! You actually included these ;-) > > CAML is a different computer language entirely, as is APL.... No > relations to LISP... > > > > If you want it related to LISP, we could be: > Lake Inter-area Symbolic Programming group (LISP Group :) > > Corey > > > -- > ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > chicago-lisp site list > chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp From vinay.doma at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 01:54:33 2006 From: vinay.doma at gmail.com (Vinay Doma) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:54:33 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> Message-ID: Chicago LISPers and Friends -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vinay.doma at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 02:03:22 2006 From: vinay.doma at gmail.com (Vinay Doma) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:03:22 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name In-Reply-To: <457869E6.3050903@riverglassinc.com> References: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> <457869E6.3050903@riverglassinc.com> Message-ID: On 12/7/06, Duane Searsmith wrote: > MALE Mid America Lisp Enthusiasts :-) > CLUE Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts I really like these two, though CLUE sounds more gender-neutral ;) From jforeman at hark.org Fri Dec 8 02:12:38 2006 From: jforeman at hark.org (Jason Foreman) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:12:38 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name In-Reply-To: <457869E6.3050903@riverglassinc.com> References: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> <457869E6.3050903@riverglassinc.com> Message-ID: <31CB71EB-EB92-41B9-9343-9B39988E2327@hark.org> On Dec 7, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Duane Searsmith wrote: > CALICO Chicago Area LIsp Community Org > CLAN Chicago Lisp Afficianados Network > MALE Mid America Lisp Enthusiasts :-) > CLEO Chicago Lisp Enthusiasts Org > CREOLE Chicago REgional Org of Lisp Enthusiasts > CLU Chicago Lisp Users > CLUE Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts > CASTLE Chicago Area SocieTy of Lisp Enthusiasts > > -- Duane > Crap, is it too late to add CLUE to the voting list? I really dig that one. Jason -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jforeman at hark.org Fri Dec 8 02:13:00 2006 From: jforeman at hark.org (Jason Foreman) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:13:00 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> Message-ID: Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group (ChiLPL - "chill pill") -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vinay.doma at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 02:14:32 2006 From: vinay.doma at gmail.com (Vinay Doma) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:14:32 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] experience using LAML? Message-ID: Have any of you guys used LAML(http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark/laml/) to generate and maintain web content? Lisp/Scheme generally seems well suited to generate html markup, but I was wondering how this compares to other web scripting toolkits. Also what other good alternatives are there in the lisp world? Thanks, Vinay From jforeman at hark.org Fri Dec 8 02:45:38 2006 From: jforeman at hark.org (Jason Foreman) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:45:38 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <54721F8C-5931-4F49-A8CD-7663888EE4CB@hark.org> On Dec 4, 2006, at 5:03 PM, John Quigley wrote: > Folks: > > Sorry for chiming in late here. Let me give the minutes of the > meeting, in brief, first: > > Chicago Lisp: 2006-12-02 > ------------------------------------------ > In attendance: John, Michael, Peter, Damien, John > Thanks for the meeting summary, and providing a link to the presentation. I've got SLIME going with SBCL here on my MacBook. With any luck I should be able to be at the upcoming meeting of CLUG, and participate in any Lisp discussion/planning that happens at there. WRT the website, I have only briefly tinkered with both Araneida and Portable AllegroServe. Neither one stood out to me as particularly better than the other, but I really only scratched the surface of their capabilities. I think a project to setup a Lisp-backed website for the group would be a decent first undertaking. Jason -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkixk at earthlink.net Fri Dec 8 03:10:22 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (Damien Kick) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:10:22 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <9E29EAA8-BDC1-421A-A7F6-E30C6790B3B3@earthlink.net> On Dec 4, 2006, at 19:06, Corey Sweeney wrote: > On 12/4/06, John Quigley wrote: > > I think the general feeling is that we should remain as the Chicago > Lisp. I'm happy with that, though I do recognize the problems > associated with a group becoming 'pigeon-holed;' if you meet long > enough, there's only so many topics one can discuss about a certain > technology. Of course, the flip side is being thinly spread over too many things. Oh, and John, I apologize as this will duplicate a lot of what I wrote to you in a private e-mail. > Hmm, I'm confused. Lets establish some terminology to help clarify: > > Scheme is a dialect of lisp > Common lisp is a dialect of lisp > {emacs lisp is too} > > So let's use "lisp" without any further constraints to refer to the > "family" of lisp languages. Kent Pitman, "Lambda, the Ultimate Political Party" : > ``If they're all Lisps, presumably they're all built around some > common core. Right?'' > > Not necessarily. Some years ago, when I was first becoming involved > with language standards, I did a personal study of languages in the > Lisp family to determine whether there was a common core of > operators that were present throughout the family with the same > name and semantics. In case you haven't heard of Kent Pitman before (sorry to be repetitive if you already have), he was the editor of the ANSI standard for Common Lisp, the effort to take what was at the time of the start of the standardization process, any number of divergent Lisp dialects and try to come up with something common. I think he would be in a very good position to know how similar or not all of those various lisp dialects where. Corey wrote: > Now scheme is a impure functional language (i.e. it has a "set" > command), just like Common lisp is a impure functional language. > I believe ML is a pure functional language. {i don't actually use > it though, so don't quote me on that} Scheme, from comp.lang.functional FAQ : > [...] in (strict) functional languages such as SML or Scheme, [...] > it is more common to find such programs written with an explicit > loop, often expressed recursively. Nevertheless, there is still no > need to update the values of the variables involved: [...] > > Scheme: > (define sum > (lambda (from total) > (if (= 0 from) > total > (sum (- from 1) (+ total from))))) > (sum 10 0) Common Lisp, from something as "general purpose knowledge" as Wikipedia : > Lastly, the Scheme standards documents require tail-call > optimization, which the CL standard does not. Most CL > implementations do offer tail-call optimization, although often > only when the programmer uses an optimization directive. > Nonetheless, common CL coding style does not favor the ubiquitous > use of recursion that Scheme style prefers -- what a Scheme > programmer would express with tail recursion, a CL user would > usually express with an iterative expression in do, dolist, loop, > or (more recently) with the iterate package. "Most" Common Lispniks would write an iterative, i.e. non-functional, version, such as the following: (loop for i from 1 upto 10 summing i) When the most exposure to lisp I had was the usual cursory intro from a comparative languages course and a intro to AI course in college, I had the impression that everything in lisp was always recursion. Having been reintroduced by Paul Graham's ANSI Common Lisp, I was under the impression that doing things like using setq should be done only in emergencies. I forget how he phrases it. Something like pretending that it incurs a cost to the function or something like that. But that's why I'm personally glad that Peter Siebel wrote Practical Common Lisp, as it focuses more on getting useful stuff done, and shows quite a bit of the "just get stuff done" aspects of the language. Common Lisp and Scheme do come from different communities. I think it is interesting to note that most all the many divergent lisp dialects that were used at one time , 3Lisp, Flavors, Franz Lisp, Interlisp, Lisp 1.5, LOOPS, XLisp, ZetaLisp, etc., have been subsumed by Common Lisp. However, Scheme remains distinct. I think that is indicative of the differences between the languages and the communities. But like is mentioned in the comp.lang.functional FAQ (ibid): > It is often possible to write functional-style programs in an > imperative language, and vice versa. It is then a matter of opinion > whether a particular language can be described as functional or not. If one wants to slide far enough down the slippery slope, even C/C++ could be considered functional languages because one can write such code without using assignment (or iteration (...)). int sum(int from, int total) { if (from == 0) { return total; } else { sum(from - 1, total + from); } } Many C/C++ compilers support tail-call optimizations, too. However, "most" C/C++ programmers would not write sum like this, using a for loop instead, just like "most" Common Lispniks. Probably because both of these languages consider tail-call optimization as a viable optimization technique (not explicitly mentioned in the standard), not a fundamental aspect of the language (unlike Scheme, which does explicitly require this behavior in the standard). "Most" Schemers would, however, use the recursive version. Corey wrote: > I would personally prefer having some room for non-lisp languages, > but I would still be ok with constraining ourselfs to lisp ( i.e. > no ML or haskel (or erlang ;) ). I would have a issue though if we > were to constrain ourselfs to the common lisp dialect. I personally would not have an issue with including many divergent dialects in the lisp family. In fact, I would love it if somebody could get Paul Graham to come talk about Arc, the newest vaporware member of the family. I suppose I would have an issue with a lisp group which was not cognizant of the distinctions, though. > Question. Does Allegroserve *require* you to buy allegro common > lisp? You might alienate some potential helpers that way. No. There is Portable AllegroServe . It works with: > CMU Common Lisp > Steel Bank Common Lisp > GNU clisp (only single-threaded operation) > OpenMCL > Xanalys Lispworks > MCL > Scieneer Common Lisp (slightly broken as of 2004-02-29) > Corman Common Lisp (with non-standard install method, might be > broken as of 2004-02-29) > Allegro Common Lisp The only reason I mentioned it was that it is an entire HTTP server in CL, as opposed to only part of it, as one would find with something like mod_lisp. But as others have mentioned, there are lots of other alternatives. Personally, I am looking for a lisp group because I like lisp and don't have enough excuse to use it at work. In fact, I think it would be sweet if we could get our hands on an old Symbolics machine and have everything be lisp, from the raw iron all the way up. But I'm strange like that. I don't expect a Linux group to host its web-server on a box running something other than Linux and I like my lisp groups to use as much lisp as possible. Corey wrote: > Also as I mentioned before {in person}, having just implemented a > wiki in scheme, I would probably be able to give some guidance if > you decide to do a wiki. And there is CLiki and The Common Lisp Directory , both written in CL. Corey wrote: > This is probably too big of a project, but I'll toss out the idea > anyway. What about writing a common lisp "interpreter" in scheme? Yeah, you're right. It probably is too big of a project. Sure, we could knock out the basics of the language, what with lexical scoping and closures coming for free from Scheme, and adding dynamic scoping (special variables) in a few lines of code. Sure, CL style macros would be a day or two at best. Pathnames, logical pathnames, packages, and reader macros aren't even worth mentioning. CLOS would be a week or two. A full meta-object protocol might take another week. Maybe two. Adding CL style conditions would probably be two weeks, maybe three tops. But doing things like getting unwind- protect and call/cc to play well together might be a bit harder . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dkixk at earthlink.net Fri Dec 8 03:15:20 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (Damien Kick) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:15:20 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name In-Reply-To: <457869E6.3050903@riverglassinc.com> References: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> <457869E6.3050903@riverglassinc.com> Message-ID: I kinda like Chicago Lisp Users Group because then we'd have CLUG CLUG. And to be honest, at the moment, chicago-lisp really isn't a separate entity from the Linux Users Group. Same space. Many of the same people. CLAN is scary, kinda. CLU is kinda cool because it is similar to ALU . We could have Association of Chicago Lisp Users but I don't think we want to risk the wrath of the other ACLU . On Dec 7, 2006, at 13:22, Duane Searsmith wrote: > CALICO Chicago Area LIsp Community Org > CLAN Chicago Lisp Afficianados Network > MALE Mid America Lisp Enthusiasts :-) > CLEO Chicago Lisp Enthusiasts Org > CREOLE Chicago REgional Org of Lisp Enthusiasts > CLU Chicago Lisp Users > CLUE Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts > CASTLE Chicago Area SocieTy of Lisp Enthusiasts > > -- Duane > > Corey Sweeney wrote: >> >> On 12/7/06, *David Douthitt* > > wrote: >> >> > * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group (Chicago APL Group) >> > * Chicago Area Many Languages Group (CAML Group) >> >> Gasp! You actually included these ;-) >> >> CAML is a different computer language entirely, as is APL.... No >> relations to LISP... >> >> >> >> If you want it related to LISP, we could be: >> Lake Inter-area Symbolic Programming group (LISP Group :) >> >> Corey >> >> >> -- >> ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> chicago-lisp site list >> chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net >> http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp > > _______________________________________________ > chicago-lisp site list > chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp From jquigley at jquigley.com Fri Dec 8 06:35:38 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:35:38 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> Things have become a bit chaotic, but I've done my best to tally the results so far. We have seven voters, and this is the break-down: ------SNIP------- 3 Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group [QUIGLEY SWEENEY BOBAK] 2 Chicago LISPers and Friends [DOUTHITT DOMA] 1 Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts [FOREMAN] 1 Chicago Lisp Users Group [KICK] ------SNIP------- I sense a certain degree of concern over the "Lisp and Programming Languages" name, and these are my thoughts. First, regardless of which of these names wins, the sole focus of our group should be Lisp. I think our projects, talks and presentations should be Lisp-specific. I think we should remain here on the common-lisp.net mailing list. In my eyes, ChiLPL has the following benefits: - more generic so that: * we can branch out if we get bored * we'll attract a broader range of people - readily identifiable/searchable by people trying to find us You'll have to excuse me, I'm moderately obsessed with branding, marketing and memes. I come by it naturally: my father is a big magazine advertiser in NYC, and I'm friends with several MIT Media Lab crazies. Of course, we can reset this vote if people want (though I tried to take into account changed votes in the tally), and we may consider a watershed vote on the top two candidates. I leave it up to you folks. Let's get this name thing resolved soon so that we can do what we do best - program. - John Quigley From jquigley at jquigley.com Fri Dec 8 06:43:33 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:43:33 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] IRC anyone? Message-ID: <45790995.3030104@jquigley.com> Anyone hang on IRC? I'm in #lisp at irc.oftc.net (oftc is similar to freenode in it's mission, however it's run much more professionally). Feel free to drop in and chat, it's pretty lonely in here. - John Quigley From dkixk at earthlink.net Fri Dec 8 06:51:02 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (Damien Kick) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 00:51:02 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2006, at 0:35, John Quigley wrote: > Things have become a bit chaotic, but I've done my best to tally > the results so far. We have seven voters, and this is the break-down: > > ------SNIP------- > > 3 Chicago Lisp and Programming Language Group > [QUIGLEY SWEENEY BOBAK] > > 2 Chicago LISPers and Friends > [DOUTHITT DOMA] > > 1 Chicago Lisp Users and Enthusiasts > [FOREMAN] > > 1 Chicago Lisp Users Group > [KICK] > > ------SNIP------- I've always liked preference voting. (rank (chicago lisp users group) (chicago lisp users and enthusiasts) (chicago LISPers and Friends) (chicago lisp and programming language group)) And CLU vs CLUE are about the same for me. Since we are from Chicago, shouldn't we be able to vote more than once or after we die? From jquigley at jquigley.com Fri Dec 8 06:53:46 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:53:46 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project 1: Website Message-ID: <45790BFA.8040208@jquigley.com> I think we're all on the same page that our first project should be setting up a collaboration server where we can develop a group website with Lisp on the back-end. If this doesn't jibe with you, speak now or forever hold your peace. This will probably be a relatively quick project, just to get us off on the right foot. I had a look at Portable AllegroServe, and it looks sexy. I'm voting we develop to this. This is a potentially highly contentious decision, so let's see where other people stand. We haven't heard from Peter (our in-house web developer and possible source of free hosting). I'd prefer a Linux environment, but could settle for a BSD if that were more convenient. What are you all used to? We are looking for free hosting. If anyone besides Peter has contacts or resources, please hook us up. I'd be interested in garnering some commercial support, as well. My company (Cleversafe), has helped the LUG a great deal, and will probably be willing to get us going, as well. - John Quigley From list at phaedrusdeinus.org Fri Dec 8 16:06:16 2006 From: list at phaedrusdeinus.org (johnnnnnnn) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:06:16 +0000 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Group Name In-Reply-To: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> References: <4577C961.1050006@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <20061208160616.GB13749@performics.com> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 01:57:21AM -0600, David Douthitt wrote: > > * Chicago Area Programming Languages Group (Chicago APL Group) > > * Chicago Area Many Languages Group (CAML Group) > > Gasp! You actually included these ;-) Those names invoke the same sort of thing which got the Rudolph Hering Society started ( http://rudolphheringsociety.org/ ). Which is meeting Monday night, if people are interested. Personally, i'm for CLUE or Chicago Lispniks. -johnnnnnnnnnnn From damien at grassart.com Fri Dec 8 17:04:57 2006 From: damien at grassart.com (Damien Grassart) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:04:57 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project 1: Website In-Reply-To: <45790BFA.8040208@jquigley.com> References: <45790BFA.8040208@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <45799B39.6000405@grassart.com> John Quigley wrote: > I think we're all on the same page that our first project should be > setting up a collaboration server where we can develop a group website > with Lisp on the back-end. If the plan is to create a web site that encourages collaboration, why not set up something like CLiki? CLiki (http://www.cliki.net/CLiki) runs on the Araneida web server (http://www.cliki.net/araneida) so it fulfills the Lisp back-end requirement and I it would probably much quicker to get something up and running then custom solutions. Sorry if this has already been suggested, I'm new around here, but I thought I'd bring it up just in case. -Damien From damien at grassart.com Fri Dec 8 17:22:37 2006 From: damien at grassart.com (Damien Grassart) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:22:37 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <45799F5D.3040505@grassart.com> John Quigley wrote: > First, regardless of which of these names wins, the sole focus of our > group should be Lisp. I think our projects, talks and presentations > should be Lisp-specific. I think we should remain here on the > common-lisp.net mailing list. > > In my eyes, ChiLPL has the following benefits: How about simply just ChiL then? I think it has the advantage over ChiLPL in that there's really only one way to pronounce it, and it keeps the focus on Lisp. Besides that, ChiLPL is good too. -Damien From jquigley at jquigley.com Fri Dec 8 17:43:29 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:43:29 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45799F5D.3040505@grassart.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> <45799F5D.3040505@grassart.com> Message-ID: <4579A441.9060700@jquigley.com> Damien Grassart wrote: > How about simply just ChiL then? I think it has the advantage over > ChiLPL in that there's really only one way to pronounce it, and it keeps > the focus on Lisp. Yea, I'm down with ChiL. - John Quigley From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 17:49:52 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:49:52 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <9E29EAA8-BDC1-421A-A7F6-E30C6790B3B3@earthlink.net> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> <9E29EAA8-BDC1-421A-A7F6-E30C6790B3B3@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On 12/7/06, Damien Kick wrote: > > > "Most" Common Lispniks would write an iterative, i.e. non-functional, > version, such as the following: > > (loop for i from 1 upto 10 summing i) > Interesting. This a tangent, but 90% of the time my iteration needs can be served by map and fold. The other times i use a recursive function. Long ago I used basic-a and C/C++, etc. and when i'd do for loops i'd usually be off by +-1 on my first try. But if "loop" works for you, go for it :) When the most exposure to lisp I had was the usual cursory intro from a > comparative languages course and a intro to AI course in college, I had the > impression that everything in lisp was always recursion. Having been > reintroduced by Paul Graham's *ANSI Common Lisp*, I was under the > impression that doing things like using setq should be done only in > emergencies. I forget how he phrases it. Something like pretending that it > incurs a cost to the function or something like that. But that's why I'm > personally glad that Peter Siebel wrote *Practical Common Lisp*, as it > focuses more on getting useful stuff done, and shows quite a bit of the > "just get stuff done" aspects of the language. > I avoid using set commands whenever I can, but I probably have differnt goals then you when programming. This is majorly tangental, and has nothing to do with any of our group decisions, but now that I said it, I'm getting really interested. What are peoples goals when programming? Some goals that I see are: * Learn things to improve my own programming technique * Get the current product/feature useable now * Get the current product/feature into a elegant (i.e. easily maintainable) form. I'm sure there are others. I guess the priority order matters to. I think most of the time my priorities are: 1. Learn things to improve my own programming technique {as evidenced by my excessive use of continuations :)} 2. Get the current product/feature into a elegant (i.e. easily maintainable) form. 3. Get the current product/feature useable now But depending on what else is going on (i.e. who's waiting for what i'm working on), then "Get the current product/feature useable now" can get pushed up. How about everyone else? Common Lisp and Scheme do come from different communities. I think it is > interesting to note that most all the many divergent lisp dialects that were > used at one time , 3Lisp, Flavors, Franz Lisp, > Interlisp, Lisp 1.5, LOOPS, XLisp, ZetaLisp, etc., have been subsumed by > Common Lisp. However, Scheme remains distinct. I think that is indicative > of the differences between the languages and the communities. But like is > mentioned in the comp.lang.functional FAQ (ibid): > It is often possible to write functional-style programs in an imperative > language, and vice versa. It is then a matter of opinion whether a > particular language can be described as functional or not. > > If one wants to slide far enough down the slippery slope, even C/C++ could > be considered functional languages because one can write such code without > using assignment (or iteration (...)). > ya, functional programming can be refered to as a "technique" that can be used in a lot of languages. On the other hand, I'm writing a language that's purely functional, so I'm in the clear on this :) > Corey wrote: > > I would personally prefer having some room for non-lisp languages, but I > would still be ok with constraining ourselfs to lisp ( i.e. no ML or > haskel (or erlang ;) ). I would have a issue though if we were to constrain > ourselfs to the common lisp dialect. > > > I personally would not have an issue with including many divergent > dialects in the lisp family. In fact, I would love it if somebody could get > Paul Graham to come talk about Arc, the newest vaporware member of the > family. I suppose I would have an issue with a lisp group which was not > cognizant of the distinctions, though. > I've seen him on the scheme mailing lists lately. He does actually answer his email, so someone could probably just send him a email asking him. It should probably be someone more diplomatic then me :) Question. Does Allegroserve *require* you to buy allegro common lisp? You > might alienate some potential helpers that way. > > > No. There is Portable AllegroServe . > It works with: > > > - CMU Common Lisp > - Steel Bank Common Lisp > - GNU clisp (only single-threaded operation) > - OpenMCL > - Xanalys Lispworks > - MCL > - Scieneer Common Lisp (slightly broken as of 2004-02-29) > - Corman Common Lisp (with non-standard install method, might be > broken as of 2004-02-29) > - Allegro Common Lisp > > The only reason I mentioned it was that it is an entire HTTP server in CL, > as opposed to only part of it, as one would find with something like > mod_lisp. But as others have mentioned, there are lots of other > alternatives. Personally, I am looking for a lisp group because I like lisp > and don't have enough excuse to use it at work. In fact, I think it would > be sweet if we could get our hands on an old Symbolics machine and have > everything be lisp, from the raw iron all the way up. But I'm strange like > that. I don't expect a Linux group to host its web-server on a box running > something other than Linux and I like my lisp groups to use as much lisp as > possible. > I assume no one cares, but I'll mention it anyway: Drscheme comes with a full web server too :) It's based on continuation based dialogs. It's discussed in this paper: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/afp2002-f.ps.gz (I think there's a better paper on it, but i couldn't find it today) If you get a symbolics machine I'd be really interested in seeing it. I keep hearing about them, but i can never see it run. (last i saw it only ran on a proprietary card, inserted into a alpha) Corey wrote: > > Also as I mentioned before {in person}, having just implemented a wiki in > scheme, I would probably be able to give some guidance if you decide to do a > wiki. > > > And there is CLiki and The Common Lisp > Directory , both written in CL. > Corey wrote: > > This is probably too big of a project, but I'll toss out the idea anyway. > What about writing a common lisp "interpreter" in scheme? > > > Yeah, you're right. It probably *is* too big of a project. Sure, we > could knock out the basics of the language, what with lexical scoping and > closures coming for free from Scheme, and adding dynamic scoping (special > variables) in a few lines of code. Sure, CL style macros would be a day or > two at best. Pathnames, logical pathnames, packages, and reader macros > aren't even worth mentioning. CLOS would be a week or two. A full > meta-object protocol might take another week. Maybe two. Adding CL style > conditions would probably be two weeks, maybe three tops. But doing things > like getting unwind-protect and call/cc to play well together might be a > bit harder . > Actually, your schedule makes it sound attainable. Basically instead of going after full ANSI-CL compliance, we could get "most" CL features working pretty quick. It wouldn't quite be a commercial development environment, but would provide some of the benifits. Basically the progress of the system could be measured by: When developing a program in the new system, what percentage of it was able to be done in the "emulated" Common Lisp, and how much had to be done in scheme? {also, i havn't cought the concept of unwind-protect and dynamic-wind yet. I just know that people are able to use those types of calls to block my continuations after they see me using continuations to get at stuff they didn't want me in :)} Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 17:59:11 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:59:11 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> Message-ID: On 12/8/06, John Quigley wrote: > > > In my eyes, ChiLPL has the following benefits: > > - more generic so that: > * we can branch out if we get bored > * we'll attract a broader range of people > - readily identifiable/searchable by people trying to find us I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using "LISP" would be a horrible idea :) Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dkixk at earthlink.net Fri Dec 8 18:05:45 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (dkixk at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:05:45 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) Message-ID: <18512771.1165601146030.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jquigley at jquigley.com Fri Dec 8 18:15:42 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:15:42 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <4579ABCE.1020305@jquigley.com> Corey Sweeney wrote: > I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that > people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using > "LISP" would be a horrible idea :) Consider, however, somebody Googling for a Lisp group in Chicago. Their search will likely be something similar to "chicago + lisp." If our name incorporates those two exact words, we'll be in good shape, I think. - John Quigley From damien at grassart.com Fri Dec 8 18:20:42 2006 From: damien at grassart.com (Damien Grassart) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:20:42 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <4579ABCE.1020305@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> <4579ABCE.1020305@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <4579ACFA.6050902@grassart.com> John Quigley wrote: > Corey Sweeney wrote: >> I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that >> people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using >> "LISP" would be a horrible idea :) > > Consider, however, somebody Googling for a Lisp group in Chicago. > Their search will likely be something similar to "chicago + lisp." If > our name incorporates those two exact words, we'll be in good shape, I > think. That's exactly how I found this group, I Google'd for "chicago lisp". From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 18:24:01 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:24:01 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <4579ABCE.1020305@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> <457907BA.2040100@jquigley.com> <4579ABCE.1020305@jquigley.com> Message-ID: good point. As I've actually done that search :) I believe i've done the following searches: "chicago lisp" "chicago scheme" "chicago scheme lisp" "illinois lisp" "illinois scheme" Corey P.S. i'm massively into memetics too. Remember to talk to me about it sometime. On 12/8/06, John Quigley wrote: > > Corey Sweeney wrote: > > I agree with this. We should have a name that's unique enough that > > people will find us on a google search. (one of the reasons using > > "LISP" would be a horrible idea :) > > Consider, however, somebody Googling for a Lisp group in Chicago. Their > search will likely be something similar to "chicago + lisp." If our > name incorporates those two exact words, we'll be in good shape, I think. > > - John Quigley > _______________________________________________ > chicago-lisp site list > chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp > -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jquigley at jquigley.com Fri Dec 8 18:29:26 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:29:26 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> <9E29EAA8-BDC1-421A-A7F6-E30C6790B3B3@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4579AF06.7080905@jquigley.com> Corey Sweeney wrote: > I avoid using set commands whenever I can, but I probably have differnt > goals then you when programming. One reason why I tend to think of Lisp as a functional language (even though it is technically multi-paradigm) has to do with the fact that I almost always program in a functional manner. Lisp for me has two primary advantages: a) supports the functional paradigm, and b) homoiconic. I tend to exploit both of those features to their fullest when I program in the language, as these have proven to produce remarkably powerful and bug-free code for me. That some Common Lisp implementations have poor support for optimized functional usage is an unfortunate, but rather irrelevant, point for me. When I need highly optimized code, I develop in C. I use Lisp for its elegance, and because it promotes the creation of rapid, bug-free programs. - John Quigley From dkixk at earthlink.net Fri Dec 8 19:42:08 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (dkixk at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:42:08 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) Message-ID: <28517184.1165606928300.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: John Quigley >Sent: Dec 8, 2006 12:29 PM >To: Chicago LISP >Subject: Re: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) > >That some Common Lisp implementations have poor support for optimized >functional usage is an unfortunate, but rather irrelevant, point for me. >When I need highly optimized code, I develop in C. This has nothing to do with "highly optimized code" in the sense of C being optimized. That is, tail-call optimization is not important because of its impact on run-time performace. Consider the two following versions of a naive REPL. One, I call CL because it uses LOOP, which does not exsit in Scheme, and one I call Scheme, because it uses recursion instead of iteration. (defun cl-repl () (loop for cmd from 1 do (format t "~&~A> " cmd) (princ (eval (read))))) (defun scheme-repl (&optional (cmd 1)) (format t "~&~A> " cmd) (princ (eval (read))) (scheme-repl (1+ cmd))) And lets see what happens when we run them in a CL image. PG-USER> (cl-repl) 1> nil NIL 2> (list 1 2 3) (1 2 3) 3> (list 'x 'y 'z) (X Y Z) 4> (list '|x| 'y '|z|) (x Y z) 5> And now we'll break at this point. Leaving out all of the SWANK calls in the stack trace, we find the following: 28: (READ) 29: (LET ((CMD 1)) (DECLARE (TYPE REAL CMD)) (TAGBODY EXCL::NEXT-LOOP (PROGN (FORMAT T "~&~A> " CMD) (PRINC #)) (EXCL::LOOP-REALLY-DESETQ CMD (1+ CMD)) (GO EXCL::NEXT-LOOP) EXCL::END-LOOP)) 30: (CL-REPL) And now what happens with the other version. PG-USER> (scheme-repl) 1> nil NIL 2> (list 1 2 3) (1 2 3) 3> (list 'x 'y 'z) (X Y Z) 4> (list '|x| 'y '|z|) (x Y z) 5> And the stack trace. Again, leaving out all of the SWANK calls. 28: (READ) 29: (SCHEME-REPL 5) 30: (SCHEME-REPL 4) 31: (SCHEME-REPL 3) 32: (SCHEME-REPL 2) 33: (SCHEME-REPL) So, this lisp is not using tail-call elimination for this code. If we write code like scheme-repl, we will eventually wind up with a stack overflow. This has nothing to do with whether or not the code is "highly optimized", as in runs fast as C. It has everything to do with whether or not the code will do the correct thing as a REPL. cl-repl will run in any/all CL images and will work as a REPL no matter how many command one types. scheme-repl in this lisp image will blow up after a large number of commands. In Scheme, scheme-repl would work just as well as cl-repl works in CL because Scheme requires tail-call elimination. Is this really irrelevant to you? Just an optimization issue because if one had infinite memory then the scheme-repl version in this CL would still work for an infinite number of commands? You know, just make sure to document that your user just needs to install the infinite RAM card before using your software. I can understand not wanting to quibble about a few megabytes between friends. One CL implementation only uses 1K and another uses 1M, 2K vs 2M, etc. Sure, that's just an optimization issue. But the difference between n and infinity? From jquigley at jquigley.com Fri Dec 8 20:20:14 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:20:14 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <28517184.1165606928300.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <28517184.1165606928300.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4579C8FE.1090407@jquigley.com> dkixk at earthlink.net wrote: > This has nothing to do with "highly optimized code" in the sense of C being optimized. Yea, that was a poor statement on my part, and was meant as a mildly sarcastic remark ('mildly,' because I do system development in C, and I do like the language). The point I didn't take time to develop in that email: that a Lisp's lack of tail-call optimization at the compiler level isn't an important issue for me. Nor does it prevent me from writing code in a functional way. While it puts more responsibility on the developer, having the choice of using standard recursion can be beneficial (if you want complete stack back-traces, for instance). - John Quigley From dkixk at earthlink.net Sat Dec 9 00:37:10 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (dkixk at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:37:10 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) Message-ID: <21694052.1165624630443.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: John Quigley >Sent: Dec 8, 2006 2:20 PM >To: Chicago LISP >Subject: Re: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) > >dkixk at earthlink.net wrote: >> This has nothing to do with "highly optimized code" in the sense of C being optimized. > >Yea, that was a poor statement on my part, and was meant as a mildly >sarcastic remark ('mildly,' because I do system development in C, and I >do like the language). > >The point I didn't take time to develop in that email: that a Lisp's >lack of tail-call optimization at the compiler level isn't an important >issue for me. Nor does it prevent me from writing code in a functional >way. While it puts more responsibility on the developer, having the >choice of using standard recursion can be beneficial (if you want >complete stack back-traces, for instance). I totally agree. Whatever does or does not happen at the compiler level is not important. What I do think is important is whether or not one style is limited within the framework of the language I'm using. So to try and put an end to this debate once and for all, let's try an objective experiment. PG-USER> ;;;; Compile file d:/tmp/duff.lisp ... ;;; Compiling file d:\tmp\duff.lisp ; While compiling REPL-WITH-LOOP: Warning: Variable DUFF-*** is never used. ;;; Writing fasl file d:\tmp\duff.fasl ;;; Fasl write complete PG-USER> (with-open-file (s "duff.lisp") (loop for line = (read-line s nil) while line do (princ line) (terpri))) (in-package :pg-user) (defun duff-user-input () "(make-array (expt 10 4) :initial-element 0)") (defun repl-with-loop () (handler-case (loop for duff-*** = nil then duff-** for duff-** = nil then duff-* for duff-* = (eval (read-from-string (duff-user-input))) finally (return-from repl-with-loop :not-limited)) (error () :limited))) (defun repl-with-funk (&optional duff-* duff-** duff-***) (declare (ignore duff-***)) (handler-case (repl-with-funk (eval (read-from-string (duff-user-input))) duff-* duff-**) (condition () :limited) (:no-error (x) (or x :not-limited)))) NIL PG-USER> (time (repl-with-funk)) ; cpu time (non-gc) 40 msec user, 0 msec system ; cpu time (gc) 381 msec user, 0 msec system ; cpu time (total) 421 msec user, 0 msec system ; real time 481 msec ; space allocation: ; 12,512 cons cells, 14,344,840 other bytes, 0 static bytes :LIMITED PG-USER> (time (eq * (repl-with-loop))) ... but I still don't have the answer to whether or not (eq (repl-with-funk) (repl-with-loop)). I have no evidence yet with which to try and convince you so I'll just forget about it until I know the result. My intuition that tail-call elimination is somehow fundamental to a functional functional style in a "lisp" will have to remain conjecture. Either way, nothing prevents you from writing funktional code but I'll keep using things like loop. Again, until that computation finishes. For now, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. From ssrat at mailbag.com Sat Dec 9 15:28:36 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:28:36 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <9E29EAA8-BDC1-421A-A7F6-E30C6790B3B3@earthlink.net> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> <9E29EAA8-BDC1-421A-A7F6-E30C6790B3B3@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <457AD624.9070009@mailbag.com> Damien Kick wrote: > On Dec 4, 2006, at 19:06, Corey Sweeney wrote: >> On 12/4/06, *John Quigley* Scheme, from comp.lang.functional FAQ : > >> [...] in (strict) functional languages such as SML or Scheme, [...] it >> is more common to find such programs written with an explicit loop, >> often expressed recursively. Nevertheless, there is still no need to >> update the values of the variables involved: [...] >> >> Scheme: >> (define sum >> (lambda (from total) >> (if (= 0 from) >> total >> (sum (- from 1) (+ total from))))) >> (sum 10 0) > >> Most CL implementations do offer tail-call optimization, >> although often only when the programmer uses an optimization >> directive. Nonetheless, common CL coding style does not favor the >> ubiquitous use of recursion that Scheme style prefers -- what a Scheme >> programmer would express with tail recursion, a CL user would usually >> express with an iterative expression in do, dolist, loop, or (more >> recently) with the iterate package. > "Most" Common Lispniks would write an iterative, i.e. non-functional, > version, such as the following: > > (loop for i from 1 upto 10 summing i) > > When the most exposure to lisp I had was the usual cursory intro from a > comparative languages course and a intro to AI course in college, I had > the impression that everything in lisp was always recursion. My first exposure to Lisp was based on the (at the time) textbook used for the Introduction to LISP course. This book was ubiquituous at the time: "Lisp" by Winston and Horn - (at the time, 1st ed.). This book used MACLISP. There was no do - no loop - no dolist - no iterate. Everything was done in recursion. Of course, that's not Common LISP (which was then used by "LISP" by Winston and Horn, 3rd ed.). My understanding of tail-call recursion optimization was that it was just expected to be there and the programmer was expected to learn how to take advantage of it. > Common Lisp and Scheme do come from different communities. I think it > is interesting to note that most all the many divergent lisp dialects > that were used at one time , 3Lisp, Flavors, > Franz Lisp, Interlisp, Lisp 1.5, LOOPS, XLisp, ZetaLisp, etc., have been > subsumed by Common Lisp. However, Scheme remains distinct. I think > that is indicative of the differences between the languages and the > communities. Scheme, in reality, is *not* a dialect of Lisp, but rather a new language. One of the biggest differences between the two is scoping: if I remember my terms right, one uses lexical scoping by default and one uses dynamic scoping. Scheme is to Lisp what Pascal is to Modula-2. Scheme is most likely best described as a Lisp descendant. > I personally would not have an issue with including many divergent > dialects in the lisp family. I agree. The more the merrier. No one's mentioned AutoLISP yet.... >> This is probably too big of a project, but I'll toss out the idea >> anyway. What about writing a common lisp "interpreter" in scheme? > > Yeah, you're right. It probably *is* too big of a project. I'm not sure how big it is - though it might be too big in Scheme. The Winston & Horn book I mentioned previously used the creation of a LISP interpreter as their last project in the book. From dietz at dls.net Sat Dec 9 15:38:26 2006 From: dietz at dls.net (Paul F. Dietz) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:38:26 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <457AD624.9070009@mailbag.com> References: <033B065C-8FF6-404B-A5F3-C014C44A2E24@earthlink.net> <4574A93A.1090503@jquigley.com> <9E29EAA8-BDC1-421A-A7F6-E30C6790B3B3@earthlink.net> <457AD624.9070009@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <457AD872.6030306@dls.net> David Douthitt wrote: > > One of the biggest differences between the two is scoping: if I > remember my terms right, one uses lexical scoping by default and one > uses dynamic scoping. Lexical scoping is the default in both Common Lisp and Scheme. Paul From ssrat at mailbag.com Sat Dec 9 15:38:44 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:38:44 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Going OT... In-Reply-To: <4579C8FE.1090407@jquigley.com> References: <28517184.1165606928300.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4579C8FE.1090407@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <457AD884.2010907@mailbag.com> John Quigley wrote: > Yea, that was a poor statement on my part, and was meant as a mildly > sarcastic remark ('mildly,' because I do system development in C, and I > do like the language). A LISPer doing system programming ought to use FORTH :-P Sorry - couldn't resist. Believe it or not, FORTH and LISP share a lot of the best qualities (though FORTH doesn't use lists or garbage collection). I've been using FORTH almost as long as I've been trying to learn LISP - except FORTH dialects (and differences) are practically inevitible, whereas Common LISP is Common LISP. From jquigley at jquigley.com Sat Dec 9 15:46:10 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:46:10 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Going OT... In-Reply-To: <457AD884.2010907@mailbag.com> References: <28517184.1165606928300.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4579C8FE.1090407@jquigley.com> <457AD884.2010907@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <457ADA42.4030408@jquigley.com> David Douthitt wrote: > Sorry - couldn't resist. Believe it or not, FORTH and LISP share a lot > of the best qualities (though FORTH doesn't use lists or garbage > collection). Let it be noted that I've been dying to learn FORTH. I simply haven't had the time to delve into that world yet. > I've been using FORTH almost as long as I've been trying to learn LISP - > except FORTH dialects (and differences) are practically inevitible, > whereas Common LISP is Common LISP. You should give an introductory talk about FORTH, perhaps here, but definitely at the LUG. It would go over famously, I suspect. - John Quigley From dkixk at earthlink.net Sat Dec 9 21:00:47 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (Damien Kick) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 15:00:47 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project 1: Website In-Reply-To: <45790BFA.8040208@jquigley.com> References: <45790BFA.8040208@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <693E7395-2D4D-40D5-BCC4-7A439B0FA586@earthlink.net> On Dec 8, 2006, at 0:53, John Quigley wrote: > We haven't heard from Peter (our in-house web developer and > possible source of free hosting). Yeah, I've noticed he's been pretty quiet. > I'd prefer a Linux environment, [...] Ah, ha! CLUG CLUG! Eh? Eh? No? Group for Users of Lisp in Chicago. CLUG GULC? Still no? Oh well. > [...] but could settle for a BSD if that were more convenient. > What are you all used to? I think the decision of and hardware/OS should purely be one of what does the person(s) who will be hosting the site have to use. From dkixk at earthlink.net Sat Dec 9 21:13:58 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (Damien Kick) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 15:13:58 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project 1: Website In-Reply-To: <45799B39.6000405@grassart.com> References: <45790BFA.8040208@jquigley.com> <45799B39.6000405@grassart.com> Message-ID: <9F6E0283-CE17-4E7B-A417-421284D88CB1@earthlink.net> On Dec 8, 2006, at 11:04, Damien Grassart wrote: > John Quigley wrote: >> I think we're all on the same page that our first project should >> be setting up a collaboration server where we can develop a group >> website with Lisp on the back-end. > > If the plan is to create a web site that encourages collaboration, > why not set up something like CLiki? CLiki (http://www.cliki.net/ > CLiki) runs on the Araneida web server (http://www.cliki.net/ > araneida) so it fulfills the Lisp back-end requirement and I it > would probably much quicker to get something up and running then > custom solutions. Sorry if this has already been suggested, I'm new > around here, but I thought I'd bring it up just in case. Of course, the biggest problem I see with any of this is getting our hands on a host for the web server. IIRC, the person at the *default- chicago-lisp-name* meeting who volunteered to host the web server hasn't been active in this thread. This is probably all a moot point until we have some place to stick anything. I definitely agree with you that CLiki would be a good idea. We could start with something very simple. John Quigley's presentation material could be the first entry. I would also vote for either Araneida or AllegroServe. I personally haven't used much of either, so I don't have a lot of first-hand experience. I did play with AllegroServe enough to fire an MMS message at it and play with decoding the message. But it was more of a "Hello, world" encoded in WAP . I know that at least one of the subscribers to chicago-lisp has used Araneida because he (Brian Mastenbrook) has made an entry about Araneida on cliki but he hasn't been active in this thread. Araneida doesn't seem to have any documentation at the common-lisp.net site. AllegroServe does at least have some documentation. Araneida kicks AllegroServe's butt in a GoogleFight, for perhaps the lamest possible metric of which gets used more. From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 22:28:26 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:28:26 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] What lisp based applications do people use? Message-ID: Hey, I was wondering, what lisp extensible applications do people use? Ones that I use, that I can think of right away are: text editor - emacs - (uses emacs lisp) WYSIWYG editor - texmacs - (uses scheme) ("guile") paint program - the gimp - (uses scheme) ("siod" i think) I've been screwing around with (but not actually properly "using") gnotime a time tracking application I don't actively use these next ones anymore, but used to use them: sawmill window manager (now called sawfish?) -- when netscape didn't have the ability to fill in forms automatically for me, sawmill could :) and siag office too, but siag office is no longer included in distributions. What other lisp extensible apps does everyone use? Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ssrat at mailbag.com Sat Dec 9 23:50:40 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:50:40 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Project 1: Website In-Reply-To: <693E7395-2D4D-40D5-BCC4-7A439B0FA586@earthlink.net> References: <45790BFA.8040208@jquigley.com> <693E7395-2D4D-40D5-BCC4-7A439B0FA586@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <457B4BD0.1090803@mailbag.com> Damien Kick wrote: > I think the decision of and hardware/OS should purely be one of > what does the person(s) who will be hosting the site have to use. Agreed. However.... It would be interesting to scare up some Symbolics machines to do something or other - a demo at a meeting if nothing else. Now if one was pressed into service as a web server - not only would it be secure (heh!) but interesting and unique to boot. Laugh if you want: there are COBOL-run and VAX-run web sites out there..... ;-) Of course, can a Symbolics machine run anything approaching Common LISP? Might need some greybeard to work on it :-) From ssrat at mailbag.com Sat Dec 9 23:54:47 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:54:47 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] What lisp based applications do people use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457B4CC7.8040406@mailbag.com> Corey Sweeney wrote: > What other lisp extensible apps does everyone use? Most of the apps I'm aware of that I use that are extensible use Lua (apt-rpm, elinks). I do use QuickCad, though it's AutoCAD that was extensible with Lisp - or is it Visual Basic - or is it...? What's the noveau language d'ann?? ("new language of the year", contrasting with "soup de jour") From jquigley at jquigley.com Sun Dec 10 00:19:50 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:19:50 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] What lisp based applications do people use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457B52A6.5050106@jquigley.com> Corey Sweeney wrote: > Hey, I was wondering, what lisp extensible applications do people use? Interestingly, my girlfriend is a practicing architect, and is very well versed in AutoCad and is quite competent with AutoLisp. As a result, I've played with AutoCad/Lisp myself. This is potential presentation fodder, should there be sufficient interest. - John Quigley From dkixk at earthlink.net Sun Dec 10 01:05:53 2006 From: dkixk at earthlink.net (Damien Kick) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 19:05:53 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] What lisp based applications do people use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 9, 2006, at 16:28, Corey Sweeney wrote: > Hey, I was wondering, what lisp extensible applications do people use? > > Ones that I use, that I can think of right away are: > text editor - emacs - (uses emacs lisp) Yeah, GNU Emacs or XEmacs and SLIME. > What other lisp extensible apps does everyone use? I have used Edi Wietz's Regex Coach, actually, to help me debug complicated regular expressions. It is actually really cool to use it for that. If one doesn't understand why a particular regular expression isn't matching in a way that one expects, one can just start typing the regular expression, and watch as what does match is highlighted. As soon as things are no longer being highlighted as one wants, it's usually pretty obvious what went wrong. But Regex Coach isn't extensible, so that doesn't really count, I suppose. I personally tend to use lisp mostly as a programming language. As most of the time I spend coding is devoted to work, and the product on which I work doesn't use lisp, I don't get to spend a whole lot of time programming in lisp. However, I do find excuses to use it. For example, I have recently written a very simplistic telnet-stream and my own anemic version (but it does do what I need to get done) of Don Libe's Expect (because I don't much like Tcl) to automate remote software installations. From awolven at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 09:03:24 2006 From: awolven at yahoo.com (Andrew Wolven) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:03:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [chicago-lisp] What lisp based applications do people use? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <248110.13438.qm@web62411.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I haven't read the thread but I will answer the question... or...would use if the company were not so vaporous. Mirai. I have Allegro 5.0.1 based Mirai. Unfortunately it breaks down alot on windows XP. The most fun part...the renderer. They had gotten rid of the lisp renderer because when they first ported to allegro it was too slow, and some dumb thing, dealing with the shell call is causing "nil is not the expected type, numuber". I am sure if I decided to get really down to it I could patch the damn thing myself, but then there is the fact that the nodelicense, which is based on an ethernet mac address, only works on this laptop when the wireless or is connected. Perhaps I would ask them if they could cut a license for the cat 5 ethernet adapter, but it was so friggen hard just to get my license updated in the first place, i'm afraid to bother them. AFAIK they are probably either A. doing nothing, or B. rewriting mirai in C++. Probably B. Either case the Izware people are a perfect example of the classic failures of major lisp based applications. It is so friggen sad it's heartbreaking. The platform is essentitially totally bitchen and ripe for insane development. [CAD person here] It has a really nice gui. HI: Human Interface (you start it by saying (hi:say-hi). You could link in SMLIB and write a constraint engine and develop your own friggen proengineer or autodesk inventor with a few measly dozen million or so. All in lisp. Integrated Knowledge-Based Engineering. Anything you want. Web deployment, sound, anything that you can run in allegro...plus all the animation simulation stuff possible from mirai and a solid modeler. THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS! Why did it fail! It failed because the Lisp Machine failed and they just couldn't keep up in a C world. I would cry myself to sleep but I still have work to do. ;) AKW --- Damien Kick wrote: > On Dec 9, 2006, at 16:28, Corey Sweeney wrote: > > > Hey, I was wondering, what lisp extensible > applications do people use? > > > > Ones that I use, that I can think of right away > are: > > text editor - emacs - (uses > emacs lisp) > > Yeah, GNU Emacs or XEmacs and SLIME. > > > What other lisp extensible apps does everyone use? > > I have used Edi Wietz's Regex Coach, actually, to > help me debug > complicated regular expressions. It is actually > really cool to use > it for that. If one doesn't understand why a > particular regular > expression isn't matching in a way that one expects, > one can just > start typing the regular expression, and watch as > what does match is > highlighted. As soon as things are no longer being > highlighted as > one wants, it's usually pretty obvious what went > wrong. But Regex > Coach isn't extensible, so that doesn't really > count, I suppose. > > I personally tend to use lisp mostly as a > programming language. As > most of the time I spend coding is devoted to work, > and the product > on which I work doesn't use lisp, I don't get to > spend a whole lot of > time programming in lisp. However, I do find > excuses to use it. For > example, I have recently written a very simplistic > telnet-stream and > my own anemic version (but it does do what I need to > get done) of Don > Libe's Expect (because I don't much like Tcl) to > automate remote > software installations. > _______________________________________________ > chicago-lisp site list > chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp > From awolven at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 02:10:04 2006 From: awolven at yahoo.com (Andrew Wolven) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:10:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [chicago-lisp] What lisp based applications do people use? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <205893.4971.qm@web62413.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- Corey Sweeney wrote: > Hmm, could you mention what Mirai is? lol From > what your saying I'm > guessing it's really expensive cad software. Hrm. Oh Yeah, Mirai is the next phase in the life of the Symbolics S-Packages. It's own company now, I guess run by Larry Malone. The symbolics s-packages were and still are cutting edge animation software. Mirai has been reportedly used in movies like the lord of the rings, and is a secret weapon among certain animators. It's animation software. Not CAD software. But Allegro is my CAD software And miria is allegro with the best Graphics software available in Lisp. It's a no brainer combination. You could Load maxima into the world and plot things. Plotting wouldn't be simple, but it would be a lot easier than if you are doing it with C++. I could go on an on about it. It's making me want to get it out and try to debug things. I have one evening and two more days of college left. I have been writing reports for days now, on two programs for my classes. I'm coming down to the wire and I am very close to finishing, but I am experiencing block after working on it straight for so long. I could spend years working with Mirai, it's just such a wonderful graphical colorful animated place to work on engineering. But there is no support. back to work... AKW P.S. I was being overly dramatic in my last email. Really. > > Corey > > On 12/10/06, Andrew Wolven > wrote: > > > > I haven't read the thread but I will answer the > > question... or...would use if the company were not > so > > vaporous. > > > > Mirai. I have Allegro 5.0.1 based Mirai. > > Unfortunately it breaks down alot on windows XP. > The > > most fun part...the renderer. They had gotten rid > of > > the lisp renderer because when they first ported > to > > allegro it was too slow, and some dumb thing, > dealing > > with the shell call is causing "nil is not the > > expected type, numuber". I am sure if I decided > to > > get really down to it I could patch the damn thing > > myself, but then there is the fact that the > > nodelicense, which is based on an ethernet mac > > address, only works on this laptop when the > wireless > > or is connected. Perhaps I would ask them if they > > could cut a license for the cat 5 ethernet > adapter, > > but it was so friggen hard just to get my license > > updated in the first place, i'm afraid to bother > them. > > > > AFAIK they are probably either A. doing nothing, > or B. > > rewriting mirai in C++. Probably B. Either case > the > > Izware people are a perfect example of the classic > > failures of major lisp based applications. It is > so > > friggen sad it's heartbreaking. The platform is > > essentitially totally bitchen and ripe for insane > > development. [CAD person here] It has a really > nice > > gui. HI: Human Interface (you start it by saying > > (hi:say-hi). You could link in SMLIB and write a > > constraint engine and develop your own friggen > > proengineer or autodesk inventor with a few measly > > dozen million or so. All in lisp. Integrated > > Knowledge-Based Engineering. Anything you want. > Web > > deployment, sound, anything that you can run in > > allegro...plus all the animation simulation stuff > > possible from mirai and a solid modeler. > > > > THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS! Why did it fail! It > failed > > because the Lisp Machine failed and they just > couldn't > > keep up in a C world. > > > > I would cry myself to sleep but I still have work > to > > do. > > > > ;) AKW > > > > --- Damien Kick wrote: > > > > > On Dec 9, 2006, at 16:28, Corey Sweeney wrote: > > > > > > > Hey, I was wondering, what lisp extensible > > > applications do people use? > > > > > > > > Ones that I use, that I can think of right > away > > > are: > > > > text editor - emacs - > (uses > > > emacs lisp) > > > > > > Yeah, GNU Emacs or XEmacs and SLIME. > > > > > > > What other lisp extensible apps does everyone > use? > > > > > > I have used Edi Wietz's Regex Coach, actually, > to > > > help me debug > > > complicated regular expressions. It is actually > > > really cool to use > > > it for that. If one doesn't understand why a > > > particular regular > > > expression isn't matching in a way that one > expects, > > > one can just > > > start typing the regular expression, and watch > as > > > what does match is > > > highlighted. As soon as things are no longer > being > > > highlighted as > > > one wants, it's usually pretty obvious what went > > > wrong. But Regex > > > Coach isn't extensible, so that doesn't really > > > count, I suppose. > > > > > > I personally tend to use lisp mostly as a > > > programming language. As > > > most of the time I spend coding is devoted to > work, > > > and the product > > > on which I work doesn't use lisp, I don't get to > > > spend a whole lot of > > > time programming in lisp. However, I do find > > > excuses to use it. For > > > example, I have recently written a very > simplistic > > > telnet-stream and > > > my own anemic version (but it does do what I > need to > > > get done) of Don > > > Libe's Expect (because I don't much like Tcl) to > > > automate remote > > > software installations. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > chicago-lisp site list > > > chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net > > > > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > chicago-lisp site list > > chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net > > > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp > > > > > > -- > ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) > From damien at grassart.com Mon Dec 11 16:51:48 2006 From: damien at grassart.com (Damien Grassart) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:51:48 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] What lisp based applications do people use? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457D8CA4.4030905@grassart.com> Corey Sweeney wrote: > Hey, I was wondering, what lisp extensible applications do people use? I've just started using it but GnuCash can be extended in Scheme (using Guile: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html ). -Damien From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 19:44:46 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:44:46 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] experience using LAML? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I looked at lama and a few others, then ended up creating my own mangled markup language. I'm not trying to promote mine, but if you want to talk about lisp based markup languages, I'd be up for talking about them. Corey On 12/7/06, Vinay Doma wrote: > Have any of you guys used LAML(http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark/laml/) to > generate and maintain web content? Lisp/Scheme generally seems well > suited to generate html markup, but I was wondering how this compares > to other web scripting toolkits. > > Also what other good alternatives are there in the lisp world? > > Thanks, > Vinay > _______________________________________________ > chicago-lisp site list > chicago-lisp at common-lisp.net > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/chicago-lisp > -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) From ssrat at mailbag.com Mon Dec 11 20:56:22 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:56:22 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] [Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] PL/scheme 0.9 Released] Message-ID: <457DC5F6.9020003@mailbag.com> Thought this might be of interest - add another program enhanced by Scheme... -------- Original Message -------- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:31:20 +0200 From: Volkan YAZICI To: pgsql-announce at postgresql.org Subject: [ANNOUNCE] PL/scheme 0.9 Released Message-ID: <20061209223119.GA1338 at alamut> Freelance Incorporation is pleased to announce the PL/scheme 0.9, the first initial release of the Scheme procedural language handler for PostgreSQL. PL/scheme is a PostgreSQL procedural language handler for Scheme programming language released under BSD license. PL/scheme uses Guile in the background as its Scheme interpreter. You can find some of the supported features by PL/scheme in the below list. o. Extensible native type support even for not created yet SQL data types. Domain, complex (ie. table's row) and pseudo (record) types are supported as well. o. [Nested] record and row types are supported both when returning a record type and as an argument to the procedure, o. IN, INOUT and OUT argument mode functionality, o. SPI functionality, o. Trigger support, o. Caching for non-volatile (and non-SRF) procedures per [top] transaction, o. Globally shared variables support, o. Support for both trusted and untrusted PL modes, o. and any available feature supported by Guile (fully R5RS compliancy, module system extension, full access to POSIX system calls, networking support, multiple threads, dynamic linking, foreign function call interface, powerful string processing, GOOPS framework, lots of builtin SRFIs and may others) are naturally shipped with PL/scheme too. You can find more information about the project and installation in the website at http://plscheme.projects.postgresql.org/ There's also an extensive WYSIWYG documentation about the shipped features along PL/scheme. PL/scheme is evolved from the PL/parrot ideas of David Fetter, therefore so much thanks to him for his inspiration. Also, many thanks to Rob Browning, Ludovic Court?s and Dale P. Smith from #guile at irc.freenode.net for their kindly help. Regards. From ssrat at mailbag.com Mon Dec 11 22:00:27 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:00:27 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Aha! moments in LISP Message-ID: <457DD4FB.7040207@mailbag.com> A Smalltalker (another *great* language) who enjoys LISP almost as much took note of a thread about Aha! moments in LISP. Check out what he has to say and the thread itself: http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/aha-moments-in-lisp/ From ssrat at mailbag.com Mon Dec 11 22:57:22 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:57:22 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Something I've noticed.... Message-ID: <457DE252.5010603@mailbag.com> I've noticed in recent years that my favorite (three) languages share some things in common: * None of them are "mainstream" or "standard" (which, for those who know history, basically means: not *Algol* based) * All of them work within their own "image" or environment. * The idea of a "stand-alone executable" is a anethema and an alien concept. * All of them encourage "rapid prototyping" * All of them encourage programming "from the bottom up" * All of them strongly encourage "small" programming units. * And: all three of them incorporate totally different programming models :-) What three are they? LISP (of course)..... and FORTH, and Smalltalk. I didn't put all these factors together until about a year ago. So: what are *your* favorite concepts in LISP (and other languages)? I might add I'm a real fan of OOP, so I'm bound to learn CLOS sooner or later.... -- David Douthitt HP-UX, Solaris, Unixware, Linux, FreeBSD RHCE, SCSA, Linux+, LPIC-1 http://www.lulu.com/ssrat From ssrat at mailbag.com Tue Dec 12 02:11:53 2006 From: ssrat at mailbag.com (David Douthitt) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:11:53 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Aha! moments in LISP (what are yours?) In-Reply-To: <457DD4FB.7040207@mailbag.com> References: <457DD4FB.7040207@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <457E0FE9.2030405@mailbag.com> David Douthitt wrote: > A Smalltalker (another *great* language) who enjoys LISP almost as much > took note of a thread about Aha! moments in LISP. So what were *your* Aha! moments? To me - to date - these were some of mine: * Realizing that text formatting had *nothing* to do with printf() formatting. * Building an application - like layers on an onion (or better yet, a baseball): start with a core, wrap it, wrap that with another function, wrap that.... * Understanding how macros really worked (from "On Lisp") What are yours? From jquigley at jquigley.com Wed Dec 13 05:55:40 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:55:40 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Vote: Our group's name In-Reply-To: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> References: <45775D4B.1040306@jquigley.com> Message-ID: <457F95DC.4030500@jquigley.com> Folks: This whole group name thing has gotten me plenty confused. I wonder: is there any opposition to us simply remaining as "Chicago Lisp?" - John Quigley From corey.sweeney at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 10:14:49 2006 From: corey.sweeney at gmail.com (Corey Sweeney) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:14:49 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] announcement for next meeting? Message-ID: We have a meeting comming up on the 16th i think. Is there gonna be a announcement, with some kind of link? (I want to copy the announcement to another mailing list after it gets sent) Corey -- ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jquigley at jquigley.com Thu Dec 14 19:53:08 2006 From: jquigley at jquigley.com (John Quigley) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:53:08 -0600 Subject: [chicago-lisp] announcement for next meeting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4581ABA4.1060507@jquigley.com> Corey Sweeney wrote: > We have a meeting comming up on the 16th i think. Is there gonna be a > announcement, with some kind of link? (I want to copy the announcement > to another mailing list after it gets sent) The Chicago G/LUG was planning to meet this coming Saturday. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. We've experienced a severe failure of our main server (chicagolug.org) and, as a result, our communication network is largely disabled, so we've decided to call the meeting off. Our next meeting is scheduled for January 20th, at which time we'll be back on our regular schedule, meeting every three weeks. I'd like for Chicago Lisp to meet along with the G/LUG, as previously discussed. So, let's plan on our next big meeting happening on the 2007-01-20. I'm currently working on acquiring a new server for chicagolug.org, and I intend to host Chicago Lisp, at their own domain, using the same machine. I have space in a facility including Internet connectivity; I just need a new machine. If you're interested in helping me financially in this pursuit, please email me. I'm aggressively working on this project, and plan to have this machine ready to roll by 01-20. We at the G/LUG are also planning regular meetups at the bar throughout the holidays. Our next get-together is tomorrow, at 5p, at Goose Island. Please feel free to join us! I'll probably send a follow-up to this with more details. I write this at a company meeting for which I'm partially presenting, so my attention is split; forgive me if anything above doesn't make sense =) - John Quigley From tfp2007 at shu.edu Sun Dec 31 14:56:37 2006 From: tfp2007 at shu.edu (TFP 2007) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:56:37 -0500 Subject: [chicago-lisp] Second Call for Papers: TFP 2007, New York, USA Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS Trends in Functional Programming 2007 New York, USA April 2-4, 2007 http://cs.shu.edu/tfp2007/ The symposium on Trends in Functional Programming (TFP) is an international forum for researchers with interests in all aspects of functional programming languages, focusing on providing a broad view of current and future trends in Functional Programming. It aspires to be a lively environment for presenting the latest research results through acceptance by extended abstracts. A formal post-symposium refereeing process then selects the best articles presented at the symposium for publication in a high-profile volume. TFP 2007 is co-hosted by Seton Hall University and The City College of New York (CCNY) and will be held in New York, USA, April 2-4, 2007 at the CCNY campus. The TFP symposium is the successor to the successful series of Scottish Functional Programming Workshops. Previous TFP symposia were held in Edinburgh, Scotland in 2003 (co-located with IFL), in Munich, Germany in 2004, in Tallinn, Estonia in 2005 (co-located with ICFP and GPCE), and in Nottingham, UK in 2006 (co-located with Types). For further general information about TFP please see the TFP homepage at http://cs.shu.edu/tfp2007/ . SCOPE OF THE SYMPOSIUM The symposium recognizes that new trends may arise through various routes. As part of the Symposium's focus on trends we therefore identify the following five article categories. High-quality articles are solicited in any of these categories: Research Articles leading-edge, previously unpublished research work Position Articles on what new trends should or should not be Project Articles descriptions of recently started new projects Evaluation Articles what lessons can be drawn from a finished project Overview Articles summarizing work with respect to a trendy subject Articles must be original and not submitted for simultaneous publication to any other forum. They may consider any aspect of functional programming: theoretical, implementation-oriented, or more experience-oriented. Applications of functional programming techniques to other languages are also within the scope of the symposium. Articles on the following subject areas are particularly welcomed: o Dependently Typed Functional Programming o Validation and Verification of Functional Programs o Debugging for Functional Languages o Functional Programming and Security o Functional Programming and Mobility o Functional Programming to Animate/Prototype/Implement Systems from Formal or Semi-Formal Specifications o Functional Languages for Telecommunications Applications o Functional Languages for Embedded Systems o Functional Programming Applied to Global Computing o Functional GRIDs o Functional Programming Ideas in Imperative or Object-Oriented Settings (and the converse) o Interoperability with Imperative Programming Languages o Novel Memory Management Techniques o Parallel/Concurrent Functional Languages o Program Transformation Techniques o Empirical Performance Studies o Abstract/Virtual Machines and Compilers for Functional Languages o New Implementation Strategies o any new emerging trend in the functional programming area If you are in doubt on whether your article is within the scope of TFP, please contact the TFP 2007 program chair, Marco T. Morazan, at tfp2007 at shu.edu. BEST STUDENT PAPER AWARD TFP traditionally pays special attention to research students, acknowledging that students are almost by definition part of new subject trends. A prize for the best student paper is awarded each year. SUBMISSION AND DRAFT PROCEEDINGS Acceptance of articles for presentation at the symposium is based on the review of extended abstracts (6 to 10 pages in length) by the program committee. Accepted abstracts are to be completed to full papers before the symposium for publication in the draft proceedings and on-line. The submission must clearly indicate to which category it belongs to: research, position, project, evaluation, or overview paper. It should also indicate whether the main author or authors are research students. Formatting details can be found at the TFP 2007 website. Submission procedures will be posted on the TFP 2007 website as the submission deadline is reached. The papers in the draft proceedings will also be made available on-line under the following conditions, with which all authors are asked to agree: The documents distributed by this server have been provided by the contributing authors as a means to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work on a noncommercial basis. Copyright and all rights therein are maintained by the authors or by other copyright holders, notwithstanding that they have offered their works here electronically. It is understood that all persons copying this information will adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. These works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. POST-SYMPOSIUM REFEREEING AND PUBLICATION In addition to the draft symposium proceedings, we intend to continue the TFP tradition of publishing a high-quality subset of contributions in the Intellect series on Trends in Functional Programming. All TFP authors will be invited to submit revised papers after the symposium. These will be refereed using normal conference standards and a subset of the best papers, over all categories, will be selected for publication. Papers will be judged on their contribution to the research area with appropriate criteria applied to each category of paper. Student papers will be given extra feedback by the Program Committee in order to assist those unfamiliar with the publication process. IMPORTANT DATES Abstract Submission: February 1, 2007 Notification of Acceptance: February 20, 2007 Registration Deadline: March 2, 2007 Camera Ready Full Paper Due: March 9, 2007 TFP Symposium: April 2-4, 2007 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE John Clements California Polytechnic State University, USA Marko van Eekelen Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands Benjamin Goldberg New York University, USA Kevin Hammond University of St. Andrews, UK Patricia Johann Rutgers University, USA Hans-Wolfgang Loidl Ludwig-Maximilians Universit?t M?nchen, Germany Rita Loogen Philipps-Universit?t Marburg, Germany Greg Michaelson Heriot-Watt University, UK Marco T. Moraz?n (Chair) Seton Hall University, USA Henrik Nilsson University of Nottingham, UK Chris Okasaki United States Military Academy at West Point, USA Rex Page University of Oklahoma, USA Ricardo Pena Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Benjamin C. Pierce University of Pennsylvania, USA John Reppy University of Chicago, USA Ulrik P. Schultz University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Clara Segura Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Jocelyn S?rot Universit? Blaise Pascal, France Zhong Shao Yale University, USA Olin Shivers Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Phil Trinder Heriot-Watt University, UK David Walker Princeton University, USA ORGANIZATION Symposium Chair: Henrik Nilsson, University of Nottingham, UK Programme Chair: Marco T. Morazan, Seton Hall University, USA Treasurer: Greg Michaelson, Heriot-Watt University, UK Local Arrangements: Marco T. Morazan, Seton Hall University, USA SPONSORS The Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Seton Hall University The Department of Computer Science, The City College of New York The Center for Algorithms and Interactive Scientific Software of The City College of New York The Grove School of Engineering of The City College of New York We are actively looking for additional TFP sponsors, who may, for example, help to subsidise attendance by research students. If you or your organisation might be willing to sponsor TFP, or if you know someone who might be willing to do so, please do not hesitate to contact the Program Chair, Marco T. Morazan, or the Symposium Chair, Henrik Nilsson. Your students will be grateful! ************************************************************************************ Dr. Marco T. Morazan TFP 2007 Program Committee Chair http://cs.shu.edu/tfp2007/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: