Comments for Three of Coins

Comment on Common Lisp, Clojure, and seriousness. by Does anyone still think of Clojure as a toy language? | Smash Company

Does anyone still think of Clojure as a toy language? | Smash Company — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:54:01 +0000

[...] looking for some Clojure info, I stumbled on this old 3 Coins post, from early 2009: Brian Carper described a few days ago, how Clojure is better (for him) than [...]

Comment on Yaclml in pictures, part II: Templating by Felipe D.

Felipe D. — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:49:27 +0000

Thanks for posting this! I had no idea how to even approach TAL since the wiki page was pretty hard to follow but now it makes sense.

This certainly opens up a few more possibilities for creating web apps with (or without) UCW.

Comment on Common Lisp, Clojure, and seriousness. by Edward Tate

Edward Tate — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:34:20 +0000

As someone who uses Common Lisp to put grub on the table, I would say that using Lisp to do serious work works well. And I actually like CFFI. :) Boy am I glad to have left the C++ / C# / Java / Python etc world behind.

I think the community that drifts from CL towards Clojure are those that deeply appreciate the JVM. Personally, I would have preferred Richs efforts to have taken place in SBCL, or one of the existing CL implementations. It definitely would have improved the state of Lisp VMs / Lisp libraries. Paul Graham also could have gone there – but I suppose his changes are purely syntactical anyway.

Its funny because five years ago I had a lecturer who was addicted to C#, and when we spoke about Lisp he called it a Toy LanguageTM. His next question, which pushed his previous statement into the land of questionability, was: “But does it support interfaces?”.

Comment on Yaclml in pictures, part II: Templating by Edward Tate

Edward Tate — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:24:18 +0000

Wow, let me just say thank you for this tutorial!!! I wasn’t using tal templates before today as I couldn’t find any documentation on the subject and now here you are, the angel comes. :)

Comment on Yaclml in pictures, part II: Templating by Three of Coins » Blog Archive » Yaclml in pictures, part I: HTML generation

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:02:01 +0000

[...] Could Yaclml HTML generation be better? Sure thing. It could step away from macros (at a performance penalty, though), and use functions, which would return and consume HTML fragments (or consume strings, or actually any Lisp values—including closures for lazy evaluation). This would introduce first-class HTML fragment object, giving us sort of DOM and possibility of passing around and manipulating already generated HTML fragments, and wouldn’t requre the <:AH and <:AI helper macros (or actually would require only one of those). That seems to be what core-server guys are doing with their DOM programming support. I don’t use it yet, partly because I don’t need this kind of functionality and I’m more acquainted with Yaclml; partly because I don’t want to buy into core-server as a whole—core-server is a monolith and ripping DOM support out of it would require substantial amount of work—and partly because I use the second part of Yaclml, which I will describe in the following article: HTML and XML templating. [...]

Comment on Revive the blog—Project 52 by Maciej

Maciej — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:01:53 +0000

Here it is: http://www.3ofcoins.net/2010/01/21/yaclml-in-pictures-part-ii-templating/ :)

Comment on Yaclml in pictures, part I: HTML generation by Three of Coins » Blog Archive » Yaclml in pictures, part II: Templating

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:00:52 +0000

[...] explanation/excuse, let’s go on interesting stuff, Yaclml; and if you still didn’t read the first part, where I wrote about HTML generation and compared Yaclml to CL-WHO, do so [...]

Comment on Revive the blog—Project 52 by Felipe D.

Felipe D. — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:58:26 +0000

I hope you write part 2 of the YACLML post!

Comment on Common Lisp, Clojure, and seriousness. by Kaveh Shahbazian

Kaveh Shahbazian — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:45:51 +0000

(
Whatever personal programming story I have and stories I saw … to the core concept, concerning me at the moment:
)

LISP IS A MYTH! Everything I have heard about Lisp is just a myth and no Lisp Development Environment (LDE?) exists out there; no stable enough implementation; no real success story; it is just PG and copies of that! After 50 years if really Lisp has anything “pragmatic” to offer, I (for one) should not programming in C# (Or Java, PHP, …) by now.

(
And I know: every cool idea is a Lisp idea and all people out there are thieves! It is just there is no stable Lisp implementation of the idea and Lisp was so busy with being elegant that could not waste time with being pragmatic.
)

Note: Maybe it never happens to me to develop in a dynamic language. But this harsh rant on Lisp (and it’s community) is an extremely obsessive and positive one. So to Lisp community: Clojure is not a toy language; it is a usable Lisp and that’s you do not like about it.

Comment on Common Lisp, Clojure, and seriousness. by Maciej

Maciej — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:37:43 +0000

C++ has a pretty comprehensive standard, and — as far as I know, if I’m mistaken, prove me wrong — no full implementation of it at all. LOOP macro is also pretty well defined by ANSI and CLHS. The “math” argument is *very* abstract and I have no idea what author actually meant — as I understand it, the “specification” (theorem — its hypothesis and conclusion) is pretty separate from “implementation” (proof of the theorem), and there are indeed multiple proofs for many theorems. I really can’t imagine what is Graham’s point here, since all examples are wrong, and “making specification and implementation identical” does not seem to be equal to “implementation-defined”. See, for example, literate programming, great example of which is TeX – reference implementation contained within a specification.