freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
13:35:16
nwoob
Lisp exists to show how wrong every other language designer has been.- How true is this statement?
13:36:13
Xach
it is a method of calling attention to the person making the statement rather than providing insight
13:37:40
nwoob
as far as i have read all the things except macros have been implemented in other languages
13:39:30
Xach
nwoob: it integrates a lot of nice ideas in one place. if you use emacs it is very easy to write in a supportive environment. if you don't, it's still pretty nice.
13:40:56
nwoob
I mean if someone asks you why are you learning a certian language, you must have a response to that right>
13:41:36
schweers
I still want to properly learn and understand (and possibly implement) forth. That doesn’t mean I want to use it every day.
13:41:40
Xach
nwoob: the reason doesn't have to be that good, though! "i was curious" or "paul graham told me it would give me a secret weapon for writing web sites" is fine.
13:42:22
dlowe
"I like learning things in the expectation that a broader mind is a more effective mind"
13:42:38
Xach
that's how i got started, and even though now i think he is a real dud with weird views about common lisp, i'm glad i got started
13:44:09
Xach
yes - it's helpful to have a broad context in which to evaluate statements presented as valuable truth
13:44:41
dlowe
"also, my half-baked thing is boring compared to startups, so I'm only doing startups now"
13:47:59
jcowan
I actually implemented a Forth (two, depending on definitions) despite being totally incompetent as a Forth programmer
13:49:29
jcowan
If said by someone else, it might be a reference to Scheme, though there is nothing in CL that doesn't appear in *some* implementation of Scheme.
13:51:41
schweers
racket seemed like such a nice thing. then they completely botched their object system :/
13:51:42
p_l
schweers: types are required for both CL and Scheme, now how complex is the implementation is another thing
13:52:03
schweers
p_l: sorry, I meant static types as a compiler hint. Not sure how to best put this.
13:53:19
p_l
I believe R3RS had essentially symbol plists so you could do like old LISP and put namespaces there
13:53:54
p_l
LFE afaik is more of a simple lisp that closely follows what's provided by Erlang itself?
13:56:46
moldybits
nwoob: other languages lack sexps, restarts, symbols, probably more. (i'm a lisp newbie so take that for what it's worth :D)
13:57:50
jcowan
There are many sexp languages now, and symbols are quite common. There is a Scheme implementation of restarts as well.
14:03:10
schweers
To get back to topic: has someone else had problems loading closer-mop in abcl on debian?
14:09:26
Bike
seems okay to me, other than the clisp thing which is probably due to clisp shipping an old asdf
14:10:52
schweers
This is what I get: Error while trying to load definition for system closer-mop from pathname /usr/share/common-lisp/source/closer-mop/closer-mop.asd: Unrecognized keyword argument ("closer-mop-packages" "closer-mop-shared")
14:11:42
schweers
I know that debian does some weird stuff to lisp and asdf, but I never figured out what is was.
14:14:06
scymtym
there is no read-time condition for abcl. the form is read as (:file :depends-on ("closer-…" …)), i.e. ("closer-…" …) appears in a keyword position
14:14:21
schweers
But it really does seem weird. As there is no clause for abcl, the last :file should result in (:file :depends-on ("closer-mop-packages" "closer-mop-shared")), right?
14:18:29
Bike
schweers: oh, you're right. on abcl it will read (:file :depends-on ("closer-mop-packages" "closer-mop-shared"))
14:19:00
schweers
Is there an easy way to configure asdf in a way so it will load a different closer-mop implementation?