3 ms·

Dragonfly 0.60 - a newLisp web framework

17 points by itistoday 17y ago

pchristensen 17y ago
Note that it's newLisp web framework, not a new Lisp web framework.
Ixiaus 17y ago
Cool post, I never new about newLISP before this; just checked out the language and it looks really cool!
- abstractbill 17y ago
  Beware. It isn't cool. It rehashes some awful mistakes that were made in the design of early Lisp languages - in particular dynamic scope. It's a shame, as some effort has clearly been put in to making newLisp something that people can get up-and-running with very quickly. But with the language itself being broken, this effort is wasted.
  - itistoday 17y ago
    Also, beware of trolls making comments like the above. newLISP's "coolness" is a matter of opinion, not some sort of objective fact. So the next time you hear someone telling you something "isn't cool, stay away from it", don't let them make up your mind for you. Thankfully I didn't listen to the bullshit and discovered a beautiful language in newLISP, and today it's my favorite language to code in. Its dynamic scope goes hand-in-hand with its interpreted nature is what makes it so great for rapid web development.
    - abstractbill 17y ago
      The word "troll" used to mean something very specific: A person who would post opinions that he or she didn't actually hold, but which were very likely to result in comical outrage from others. The modern meaning seems to have drifted towards "someone who disagrees with me" :( In any case, I don't care too much about making up peoples' minds for them. A great deal has already been written about how dynamic scope is a Bad Thing. I'd just like people to be aware of that before diving into newLisp.
      - itistoday 17y ago
        Sorry, by "troll" I meant someone who spreads misinformation, whether deliberately or unknowingly through ignorance. Perhaps I'm misusing the word, if so, my apologies. A great deal has already been written about how dynamic scope is a Bad Thing. What most people don't like about dynamic scope has to do with its use in compiled languages. newLISP isn't compiled and so many of those criticisms aren't applicable. Dynamic scope because makes newLISP fast (lexical scope adds a great deal of overhead). newLISP also doesn't need lexical scope because it has ways of doing lexical scope on a need-to-use basis (see the 'letex' and 'expand' functions). Most of the time you don't need to worry about it, and oftentimes dynamic scope is a nice thing to have, too. So please, do dive into the issue of scope, it's an important one, but do so fully informed about it. At least with regards to newLISP, it's certainly not a show stopper.
        abstractbill 17y ago
        My issues (and I think most peoples' issues) with dynamic scope have nothing to do with being compiled or interpreted. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_%28programming%29#Dynamic_scoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_%28programming%29#Dynamic...): "However, this benefit relies on careful documentation of all variables used this way as well as on careful avoidance of assumptions about a variable's behavior, and does not provide any mechanism to detect interference between different parts of a program. As such, dynamic scoping can be dangerous and almost no modern languages use it."
        itistoday 17y ago
        OK, but that paragraph doesn't provide a practical example of what it's talking about, so I'll provide one here: (define (my-unpredictable-func) (println a)) In that function the value of the symbol 'a' will change depending on the context the function is called in. This is called an "unbounded symbol" (or something along those lines), and it is the thing that paragraph is referring to. It is true that it is not safe to write code like this, and so most newLISP code doesn't do this. The proper way to write the function in newLISP is like so: (define (my-predictable-func a) (println a)) Here it is plain and obvious what the value of 'a' will be: whatever is passed into the function. This is how most newLISP code is written, and it works, and it's safe, and it's fast. If newLISP used lexical scope you would be complaining about how slow it was. In very rare circumstances, you may need some lexical construct, in which case you have the functions 'letex' and 'expand' available to you. From this example you can see that this isn't a "show stopper" but something to simply be aware of. Sortof how dereferencing NULL pointers in C is a possibility, but not a show stopper.
  - KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
    In my opinion, dynamic scope is adequate solution for Lisp approach, i.e. expressive power on the first place. Newlisp is very simple and expressive dialect, and it is pleasure using it. Dynamic scope allow some things statical scope doesn't. Sure, the price for that expressive power is that one has to be more careful, but this is not really that hard, and it shouldn't be the problem to anyone who really accept basic Lisp ideas. I can see how dynamic scope - just like dynamic typing, eval or macros - could be seen as problem for people who want language like, say, Ada that puts safety on the first place. It is legitimate position. But it is not design goal or tradition of Lisp. Lisp is designed for AI, exploratory programming, hacking, expressive power, adventure. Owner of this site, Paul Graham, frequently wrote in that vein. It is simply not consistent to brag about expressive power of Lisp, and then turn into safety freak when one mentions dynamic scope. OK safety freak is maybe too strong, but you get the point.
    - pg 17y ago
      Dynamic scope is a decrease in expressive power. You don't get closures.
      - plinkplonk 17y ago
        PG on newLisp a long time ago "I took a quick look at it. It looked to me as if the way you're supposed to avoid variable capture is to use variables with unusual names. Is this really the plan? What about expansions that occur within expansions?" http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/257#comment-1889 http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/257#comment-1889
        KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
        There are few ways out of that: 1. use of "contexts" i.e. Newlisp namespaces 2. use of same approach as in CL or Scheme macros. In CL it is automatic generation of unusual names, gensyms, in Scheme it is even more automatic "hygiene". Both of these approaches are available in Newlisp as well. One can check my blog post at: http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as-sexprs.html http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as-sexpr... It is not simple reading if one didn't used dynamic scope, but essentially it is how one can write hygienic fexprs (Newlisp macros are actually fexprs). 3. use of some "OO" additions. I am bit of OO sceptic, but for those who are not, there are at least two OO systems for Newlisp. 3.1. Official FOOP system, still in development http://newlispfanclub.alh.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3408&start=0 http://newlispfanclub.alh.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=... 3.2. Greg's OO system http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2009/12/introducing-objective-newlisp/ http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2009/12/introducing-objective-...
uggedal 17y ago
Bad name, already used for a BSD flavor and Opera's debug thingie
vdm 17y ago
When I see 'Dragonfly' on HN, I think of DragonflyBSD. http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ Did you even Google the name?
- itistoday 17y ago
  Yes. The word Dragonfly is used to describe many things, have you Googled it? It's used by so many companies and projects that qualifying it (DragonflyBSD, Dragonfly Web Framework, etc.) is practically a requirement. Why Dragonfly? Because newLISP's clever logo is a Dragonfly made out of parenthesis: http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=Art http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=Art

17 points by itistoday 17y ago

pchristensen 17y ago

Note that it's newLisp web framework, not a new Lisp web framework.

Ixiaus 17y ago

Cool post, I never new about newLISP before this; just checked out the language and it looks really cool!

abstractbill 17y ago
Beware. It isn't cool. It rehashes some awful mistakes that were made in the design of early Lisp languages - in particular dynamic scope. It's a shame, as some effort has clearly been put in to making newLisp something that people can get up-and-running with very quickly. But with the language itself being broken, this effort is wasted.
- itistoday 17y ago
  Also, beware of trolls making comments like the above. newLISP's "coolness" is a matter of opinion, not some sort of objective fact. So the next time you hear someone telling you something "isn't cool, stay away from it", don't let them make up your mind for you. Thankfully I didn't listen to the bullshit and discovered a beautiful language in newLISP, and today it's my favorite language to code in. Its dynamic scope goes hand-in-hand with its interpreted nature is what makes it so great for rapid web development.
  - abstractbill 17y ago
    The word "troll" used to mean something very specific: A person who would post opinions that he or she didn't actually hold, but which were very likely to result in comical outrage from others. The modern meaning seems to have drifted towards "someone who disagrees with me" :( In any case, I don't care too much about making up peoples' minds for them. A great deal has already been written about how dynamic scope is a Bad Thing. I'd just like people to be aware of that before diving into newLisp.
    - itistoday 17y ago
      Sorry, by "troll" I meant someone who spreads misinformation, whether deliberately or unknowingly through ignorance. Perhaps I'm misusing the word, if so, my apologies. A great deal has already been written about how dynamic scope is a Bad Thing. What most people don't like about dynamic scope has to do with its use in compiled languages. newLISP isn't compiled and so many of those criticisms aren't applicable. Dynamic scope because makes newLISP fast (lexical scope adds a great deal of overhead). newLISP also doesn't need lexical scope because it has ways of doing lexical scope on a need-to-use basis (see the 'letex' and 'expand' functions). Most of the time you don't need to worry about it, and oftentimes dynamic scope is a nice thing to have, too. So please, do dive into the issue of scope, it's an important one, but do so fully informed about it. At least with regards to newLISP, it's certainly not a show stopper.
      - abstractbill 17y ago
        My issues (and I think most peoples' issues) with dynamic scope have nothing to do with being compiled or interpreted. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_%28programming%29#Dynamic_scoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_%28programming%29#Dynamic...): "However, this benefit relies on careful documentation of all variables used this way as well as on careful avoidance of assumptions about a variable's behavior, and does not provide any mechanism to detect interference between different parts of a program. As such, dynamic scoping can be dangerous and almost no modern languages use it."
        itistoday 17y ago
        OK, but that paragraph doesn't provide a practical example of what it's talking about, so I'll provide one here: (define (my-unpredictable-func) (println a)) In that function the value of the symbol 'a' will change depending on the context the function is called in. This is called an "unbounded symbol" (or something along those lines), and it is the thing that paragraph is referring to. It is true that it is not safe to write code like this, and so most newLISP code doesn't do this. The proper way to write the function in newLISP is like so: (define (my-predictable-func a) (println a)) Here it is plain and obvious what the value of 'a' will be: whatever is passed into the function. This is how most newLISP code is written, and it works, and it's safe, and it's fast. If newLISP used lexical scope you would be complaining about how slow it was. In very rare circumstances, you may need some lexical construct, in which case you have the functions 'letex' and 'expand' available to you. From this example you can see that this isn't a "show stopper" but something to simply be aware of. Sortof how dereferencing NULL pointers in C is a possibility, but not a show stopper.
- KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
  In my opinion, dynamic scope is adequate solution for Lisp approach, i.e. expressive power on the first place. Newlisp is very simple and expressive dialect, and it is pleasure using it. Dynamic scope allow some things statical scope doesn't. Sure, the price for that expressive power is that one has to be more careful, but this is not really that hard, and it shouldn't be the problem to anyone who really accept basic Lisp ideas. I can see how dynamic scope - just like dynamic typing, eval or macros - could be seen as problem for people who want language like, say, Ada that puts safety on the first place. It is legitimate position. But it is not design goal or tradition of Lisp. Lisp is designed for AI, exploratory programming, hacking, expressive power, adventure. Owner of this site, Paul Graham, frequently wrote in that vein. It is simply not consistent to brag about expressive power of Lisp, and then turn into safety freak when one mentions dynamic scope. OK safety freak is maybe too strong, but you get the point.
  - pg 17y ago
    Dynamic scope is a decrease in expressive power. You don't get closures.
    - plinkplonk 17y ago
      PG on newLisp a long time ago "I took a quick look at it. It looked to me as if the way you're supposed to avoid variable capture is to use variables with unusual names. Is this really the plan? What about expansions that occur within expansions?" http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/257#comment-1889 http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/257#comment-1889
      - KazimirMajorinc 17y ago
        There are few ways out of that: 1. use of "contexts" i.e. Newlisp namespaces 2. use of same approach as in CL or Scheme macros. In CL it is automatic generation of unusual names, gensyms, in Scheme it is even more automatic "hygiene". Both of these approaches are available in Newlisp as well. One can check my blog post at: http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as-sexprs.html http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as-sexpr... It is not simple reading if one didn't used dynamic scope, but essentially it is how one can write hygienic fexprs (Newlisp macros are actually fexprs). 3. use of some "OO" additions. I am bit of OO sceptic, but for those who are not, there are at least two OO systems for Newlisp. 3.1. Official FOOP system, still in development http://newlispfanclub.alh.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3408&start=0 http://newlispfanclub.alh.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=... 3.2. Greg's OO system http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2009/12/introducing-objective-newlisp/ http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2009/12/introducing-objective-...

uggedal 17y ago

Bad name, already used for a BSD flavor and Opera's debug thingie

vdm 17y ago

When I see 'Dragonfly' on HN, I think of DragonflyBSD. http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ Did you even Google the name?

itistoday 17y ago
Yes. The word Dragonfly is used to describe many things, have you Googled it? It's used by so many companies and projects that qualifying it (DragonflyBSD, Dragonfly Web Framework, etc.) is practically a requirement. Why Dragonfly? Because newLISP's clever logo is a Dragonfly made out of parenthesis: http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=Art http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=Art