libera/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
10:01:39
pjb
lakshay: http://cliki.net/Getting+Started http://cliki.net/Online+Tutorial http://cliki.net/Lisp+Books
10:04:34
wasamasa
all I can say on the topic is that the only way something will stick in your mind is by writing code
10:06:26
wasamasa
you can learn all you want about tires and roads, but at some point the tire needs to hit the road
10:07:18
pjb
lakshay: this lecture, and reading sicp is very good. But it's not teaching scheme (much less lisp). It's teaching programming!
10:07:33
pjb
lakshay: you should definitely read sicp and watch those lecture, but you asked about learning lisp, not programming.
10:08:31
pjb
even discounting the fact that it was written/recorded when r4rs was the oopla, and now it's r7rs!
10:09:13
wasamasa
if your plan is to finish the SICP course, CL, clojure and elisp are stupid choices
10:09:24
pjb
lakshay: Start with common lisp. Then you'll learn how emacs lisp differs from common lisp, to be able to customize emacs. Then you'll learn about scheme, to be able to use some pedagogical material.
10:12:02
wasamasa
it teaches you how to solve problems by throwing increasingly difficult problems at you
10:13:22
wasamasa
whereas when writing python or whatever, you learn how to stick existing solutions to problems together and call it a day
11:38:16
aeth
lisbeths: the only subset I'm aware of is not having CLOS because the earlier revision of the language hadn't settled on an object system yet (but it sort of has one in defstruct, anyway)
11:39:06
aeth
however, you still need to implement almost-CLOS with the condition system (SBCL does implement it separately from CLOS, but most people just save the effort and implement it from CLOS)
11:39:25
aeth
and you need CLOS to use almost all libraries, including ASDF, which is kind of important
11:40:14
aeth
You could also personally drop some macros that have equivalents entirely elsewhere, such as LOOP (or, on the other hand, most other iterations, if they can be implemented on top of LOOP)
12:36:52
pjb
lisbeths: yes, a subset of cl that is sufficiently powerless, should be both consistent and complete.
12:39:00
pjb
lisbeths: basically anything that is turing complete will be inconsistent or incomplete.
12:40:24
pjb
lisbeths: but since you're running on finite computers in a finite universe anyways, you can expect our systems to be consistent and complete, at least theorically. That's what some people aim to achieve. Unfortunately, more often than not, they cannot make them consistent: systems crash and have bugs (some bugs can be sign of inconsistency, some of incompleteness).
12:40:49
pjb
But in theory, it's possible to write a finite system to be both consistent and complete, aka bug-free.
12:56:11
lisbeths
many of the systems that track the orbital bodies in the sky and all the UFO system tracking uses ada
13:08:30
lisbeths
there are deep conspiracies to do with these programming languages: Fortran x86 common lisp and Ada
13:15:56
lisbeths
it's not a coincidence that so many people including myself have tried to invent something similar to lisp only to find that already exists
14:32:18
nomagno
Also WDYM Scheme doesn't support tail call recursion on quantum computers!? I'm going to need a source for that
14:36:24
nomagno
wasamasa: You can't tell me lisbeths dropped a bomb such as "Scheme doesn't support tail recursion on quantum computers" just to screw around...
14:37:38
nomagno
Why would scheme be implemented on a current quantum computer, anyways? They barely support the equivalent of instructions at a time, as it is.
15:10:55
Shark8
lisbeths, sham1 (re: Lisp & Ada) -- There was apparently an Ada written in Lisp: Symbolics Ada.
15:13:26
lisbeths
so are you claiming that you can implement algorithms using tail call recursion and still make use of the full processing power of the quantum computer?
15:14:56
Shark8
lisbeths, Perhaps, I simply don't have the experience with quantum computers and their constraints to say "yes" or "no".
15:15:28
lisbeths
I had been told by a smart person in IRC that you can't so that's why I thought that
15:17:42
edgar-rft
nomagno: because quantum computers surely are a great thing for all kind of pyramid schemes
15:18:10
Shark8
lisbeths, I see. If there are challenges like that, then perhaps the best way to address them would be something like Ada's TASK construct, combined with the Distributed System Annex, where you could (theoretically) put some limited subprocess on the quantum computer and access it on a traditional computer.
15:19:12
Shark8
edgar-rft, At this point in time, you're probably right -- quantum computers need a LOT of development to be [in general] usable.