Comments on: Talking to Donkeys http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:27:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steve Knight http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys/comment-page-1#comment-2916 Steve Knight Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:16:25 +0000 http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys#comment-2916 Hi Nikodemus thanks for your comment! You are right of course, and I will next time. Cheers Steve Hi Nikodemus thanks for your comment!

You are right of course, and I will next time.

Cheers

Steve

]]> By: Nikodemus Siivola http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys/comment-page-1#comment-2901 Nikodemus Siivola Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:05:54 +0000 http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys#comment-2901 You need, what, IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP? In the future, I would recommend that you send email to either sbcl-help or sbcl-devel, and ask for support to be added. Of course, large requests may never happen due to resource constraints, and even trivial ones may take a while -- but we do try to implement things people ask for. As for multicasting sockopts, I have an untested patch that adds them to SB-BSD-SOCKETS, should you wish to play to guinea pig... You need, what, IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP? In the future, I would recommend that you send email to either sbcl-help or sbcl-devel, and ask for support to be added.

Of course, large requests may never happen due to resource constraints, and even trivial ones may take a while — but we do try to implement things people ask for.

As for multicasting sockopts, I have an untested patch that adds them to SB-BSD-SOCKETS, should you wish to play to guinea pig…

]]> By: Steve Knight http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys/comment-page-1#comment-2212 Steve Knight Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:18:17 +0000 http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys#comment-2212 Yeah, well Lisp does have <a href="http://cliki.net" rel="nofollow"> CLiki</a> which is similar in concept to CPAN but it's not very easy to navigate and some of the dependencies appear to be missing. You are of course correct in your assertion that it does not have many people using it. I don't know if it's ever going to improve and I'm not going to hold my breath. The central point, for me at least, is "does it have enough to it to let me do what I want?". So far the answer to that it is definitely yes. Perhaps, what CL probably needs is another standardisation effort but again there will be no holding of any breath. Yeah, well Lisp does have CLiki which is similar in concept to CPAN but it’s not very easy to navigate and some of the dependencies appear to be missing.

You are of course correct in your assertion that it does not have many people using it. I don’t know if it’s ever going to improve and I’m not going to hold my breath.

The central point, for me at least, is “does it have enough to it to let me do what I want?”. So far the answer to that it is definitely yes. Perhaps, what CL probably needs is another standardisation effort but again there will be no holding of any breath.

]]> By: Graham King http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys/comment-page-1#comment-2180 Graham King Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:27:28 +0000 http://www.hackinghat.com/index.php/lisp/talking-to-donkeys#comment-2180 You make a good point with 'free is far more powerful than anything I can buy', but it's not very well illustrated with '1994 ANSI Common Lisp'. The more popular open source languages illustrate it much better: Python's "batteries included", Perl's CPAN, and even Java (not strictly open source) has most things you need in the JDK, J2EE, or on Apache / Jakarta. Ruby and PHP also have pretty fully featured standard libraries. Lisp simply doesn't have enough people using it to enjoy the 'network effects' that make open source so successful. The open source advantage is that the best version becomes standard, often being incorporated into future versions (Python does this), whereas with a closed language you get only v0.1 baked into the language forever. You don't have to use C# or Lisp, Steve, there's joy in the middle! You make a good point with ‘free is far more powerful than anything I can buy’, but it’s not very well illustrated with ’1994 ANSI Common Lisp’.
The more popular open source languages illustrate it much better: Python’s “batteries included”, Perl’s CPAN, and even Java (not strictly open source) has most things you need in the JDK, J2EE, or on Apache / Jakarta. Ruby and PHP also have pretty fully featured standard libraries.
Lisp simply doesn’t have enough people using it to enjoy the ‘network effects’ that make open source so successful.
The open source advantage is that the best version becomes standard, often being incorporated into future versions (Python does this), whereas with a closed language you get only v0.1 baked into the language forever.
You don’t have to use C# or Lisp, Steve, there’s joy in the middle!

]]>