Alexander Sedov <alex0pla...@gmail.com> writes: > May I get links to your hard works or at least to your papers, or all > you have is some stuff you failed to sell to Yahoo, like that one guy?
Wait, I thought he DID sell it, and now farms Chocobos over at Hacker News? I originally had links, but thought it gauche, but if you're gonna call me out: [1] http://www.webcheckout.net/in-use.html [2] https://github.com/strangeloop/clojurewest2013/blob/master/slides/sessions/Brozefsky-SQL_and_core.logic_Killed_My_ORM.pdf [3] http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo One is a resource scheduling/mgmt and inventory control system for university media centers written from scatch in Common Lisp back in ~2000. The second is my current Clojure project, a large-scale malware analysis engine with an expert system built on core.logic. The last is a job I got because of being a lisp hacker, tho it was a Logo variant implemented in Java -- my job application was a module embedding Kawa Scheme, with scheme <-> Logo interop. > You must be really proud about making new tools for solving new > problems, except it's what programmers do, isn't it? Not really, it seems to mostly be text plumbing, and incomplete rediscovering of things that were invented in the 70s. >>> And no libraries. >> >> Trollolololol. > If your "Trolololol" means "you just cannot google", then links > please. People already posted links for CL repos, I would add clojars for Clojure stuff. > If however it does mean "tr00 programmers don't need > libraries", then I shall agree that Lisp is on par with Forth in that > it allows you to rewrite stuff that had already been written in other, > less ideal, languages, VERY elegantly. But some people need to write > something new, too. Never had a problem finding libraries to use, even back in the old days of CMUCL. The ones we ended up writing where the a bit rarer back then, functional SQL composition, ORMs, component based web frameworks, simulated annealing, genetic algos. and java->lisp interop. Standard stuff now, but not then. All the plumbing was already there. You know what DID suck tho, signal handling in CMUCL! Over the long haul I think in the CL world the plethora of half-finished, raw, parts of libraries was the real problem. Dissipated community effort, and NIH fragmented it. I think we didn't have a good model for modularity in CL, so there was a tendency towards heavy, "frameworks" instead of small, composable libraries. I think Clojure gets this much better. I prefer textuality instead of opaque composability. I like the approach Anselm laid out in his presentation about the future of dwm and a shared set of functions for drawing. > Having reread my answer, I apologize if you find it unusually rude, > but you are pronouncing the same empty words that I heard many times. I took it as a fellow cumrudgeonly troll, which is a bit of a tradition here. I always thought programmers needed to know two languages: One to talk to machines, and one to talk to humans (including themselves). C for machines, and a lisp for symbolic computation. I think that dichotomy stands up well, even if the dividing line moves around and is largely determined by the intent of the author and the context of deployment. -- Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> Premature reification is the root of all evil
