freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
3:10:20
equwal
Looks pretty neat, definitely better than w3m which I use for most of my non-firefox browing.
3:10:24
iqubic
DO you run Linux? I run linux and I'm not sure I want to go through the pain of getting it to work.
3:10:44
equwal
I'll just start it up and review it now I guess, I'm used to compiling stuff from source at this point.
3:24:18
figurelisp
why do people call javascript same as lisp? in what sense they are talking about and is that true?
3:26:29
mange
I don't think anyone would say that Javascript is the same as Lisp, but people often want to claim that it's very "Scheme-y". I think the biggest thing that lets people claim that is first-class functions.
3:28:26
drewc
figurelisp: because people from C++ and Java think Lisp is functional, and think ECMAscript is as well.
3:29:55
equwal
brettgilio: Arch probably has 1.4.9 pre-compiled in their testing repo, and if so you shouldn't use that repo on stable. You will eventually break stuff doing that. Instead, you compile from source.
3:30:05
beach
figurelisp: Lots of people would like to think that their language is some Lisp dialect. But since "Lisp" is not well defined (as opposed to Common Lisp), it is meaningless and can't be checked or refuted. Luckily, this channel is dedicated to Common Lisp, so we don't have debates like that.
3:32:00
beach
equwal: Like I said, Lisp is not well defined, so it is not obvious to some people. But since this channel is about Common Lisp, we don't have to decide one way or the other.
3:34:23
equwal
If it was a genuine question then the answer is no, it isn't a lisp, but it does have some vaguely functional things like lambdas.
3:35:36
drewc
figurelisp: from that link: 'JavaScript also isn’t Lisp as people who write Lisp use the word. Agree or disagree, the “Lisp Community” has coalesced around Common Lisp. Anything that doesn’t harken back to MacLisp is considered not-Lisp by experts. You know, Scheme looks a lot like a Lisp-1 to everyone else, but hard-core Lispers will tell you that Scheme isn’t Lisp and that the only thing it has in common with Lisp is CONS'
3:37:28
equwal
Can we find any specific source who claims that Scheme isn't a lisp? At the very least, its inventors definitely considered it a lisp.
3:37:49
drewc
FWIW, I now write primarily in a scheme dialect, and I do not call it Lisp, it's scheme! :)
5:48:44
aeth
*The* point of Lisp is that you use macros on top of s-expressions. Common Lisp is the common Lisp, replacing all of the historic Lisps except Emacs Lisp. Any new approach (including Scheme, which changed a lot in r4rs, r5rs, etc.) has its own channel, and Emacs Lisp has its own channel. The only useful thing to talk about here is practical Common Lisp problems. Very few people want to talk about language families.
5:49:18
aeth
There is a ##lisp for the Lisp family. It's a pretty dead channel. Even #scheme is pretty quiet and mostly used by people implementing Schemes, doing academic Scheme exercises, or trying to write portable Scheme libraries.
5:51:07
aeth
Common Lisp is the subject here not for deep philosophical reasons but because Common Lisp is a useful thing to talk about and much more useful than "is X a Lisp?", which probably belongs in ##lisp or #lispcafe
5:55:46
JuanDaugherty
that seems to imply some kind of questionable altruism as opposed to that common lisp just needs a dedicated channel
5:56:51
aeth
JuanDaugherty: What I mean is: Does Common Lisp deserve "#lisp"? It does because it's far more active than Lisp-family discussions would be on an IRC channel.
6:01:19
JuanDaugherty
well it's effectively squatted it aggressively so it's a moot discussion at this point. The most you can do is try to fluff up ##lisp or go to another network
6:12:55
JuanDaugherty
it was already a thing, if not that much of one, when I learned smalltalk in '85
6:15:24
JuanDaugherty
yeah wiki says 88 for irc, i'm pretty sure golden hill was selling something they called CL before that
6:19:46
JuanDaugherty
surprised because you'd think that much functionality in one box (cl-containers) would get more play
6:24:29
shka1
it is not all that feature rich, but since i made it myself i find it conceptually optimal
6:26:19
JuanDaugherty
i see the virtue of it, LIL is just containers, cl-containers has stuff, the stuff I thought was useful
6:27:35
shka1
cl-containers has OK code, it's just it does not feel like it belongs to the XXI century
6:28:48
JuanDaugherty
i can't think of any computing culture where old stuff is more useful, accepted, tolerated, etc, than common lisp
6:31:20
shka1
anyway, what I really want to do with my project is to construct set of reasonable interfaces that can act as bridge
6:37:08
shka1
like this https://github.com/sirherrbatka/cl-data-structures/blob/d3566faf0e4f640ff88f490ead0d6c0ccd49c742/src/dicts/hamt/range-test.lisp#L49
6:44:50
JuanDaugherty
i do see why now, other reasons occurred and the main thing I wanted to know, that it works you answered, ty
7:06:20
beach
What's the relation? I mean Firefox is not a Common Lisp program as far as I know, and I suppose IPC means inter-process communication, and that's quite general.
7:10:16
ym
I want to get current page URL and some meta-data from firefox without StumpWM kludges, but seems like the most convenient way is to get hands dirty with JS or to use Emacs's w3, so never mind.
8:47:17
dim
thanks Norvig for PAIP now being available on GitHub, it makes linking to references from the book much easier ;-)
9:46:26
zigpaw
I wonder if there is a library that would allow easy pattern matching for function parameters in CL based on some of the parameters properties? like fnc1 (arg1 is list with length 1) <body1> ; fnc (arg1 is list with length 2) <body2>, etc...
9:50:59
TMA
zigpaw: DESTRUCTURING-BIND might be a basis for your own library, if you don't find one to your liking
9:54:18
shka
not lambda lists, but mix of MOP, compiler macros and optima should allow you to do everything in this area
10:50:03
jmercouris
e.g. (defun fish () (defun salmon () (print "I'm a salmon")) (funcall #'salmon))
10:51:39
jmercouris
and these functions defined in an flet, do they share the lexical context of the enclosing defun, for example?
10:52:51
splittist
If I understand what you mean, yes. flet and labels differ in terms of recursivity, in the way let and let* do
10:55:15
splittist
"labels is equivalent to flet except that the scope of the defined function names for labels encompasses the function definitions themselves as well as the body."
11:37:52
jdz
zigpaw: you might be interested in https://european-lisp-symposium.org/static/2016/newton.pdf