6 ms·

Common Lisp: The Untold Story (2008)

70 points by daveloyall 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kazinator 10y ago
That ISLISP phenomenon is curious. It seems that almost overnight, this counter-group whipped a Lisp dialect seemingly out of thin air, and got it ISO standardized. I'm also curious about the role of Vince Manis in the whole thing, (because I knew him as an instructor at the University of British Columbia). http://islisp.info/sponsors.html http://islisp.info/sponsors.html "In addition to organizational support, we appreciate and acknowledge having received personal support from: Vincent Manis"
- ruricolist 10y ago
  I've gotten the impression in the past that ISLISP was largely based on pre-existing work by Queinnec, but I don't have any proof.
  - groovy2shoes 10y ago
    I think it might be fair to say that Christian Queinnec's "Reasonable Lisp" had some influence on the ISLISP committee, but overall ISLISP as a language is very obviously intended to be "compatible" with Common Lisp, in the sense that an implementation could be conformant to both ISLISP and Common Lisp in a single "mode". In fact, Kent Pitman wrote an ISLISP "compatibility package" in Common Lisp in order to make sure it was do-able prior to the ratification of ISLISP. I.e., ISLISP can be implemented as a library for Common Lisp, without the need for a separate interpreter/translator.
- lispm 10y ago
  The work started in 1988. Early 90s WG16 decided to use a Japanese proposal for Lisp with a CLOS-like object system added. Much of the work came from France, Germany, UK, Japan and the US.
- groovy2shoes 10y ago
  ISLISP is indeed interesting, albeit more from a political standpoint than a technical one. It really was not an overnight process -- ISO had started the project shortly after the ANSI committee for Common Lisp was formed. There was fear in Europe and in Japan that the US would have too much control over the future of Lisp with only an ANSI standard and no international one. What ISLISP actually wound up being, after about a decade in development, is a crippled subset of Common Lisp, modulo alpha conversion (some things were renamed). Politically, it worked to assuage the fears over American control, but technically it was a flop. As far as I can tell, the only implementation currently available is OpenLisp from Eligis, which is commercial, expensive, and features many extensions to the standard language. I have a hunch that the politics surrounding ISLISP also lead to the demise of EuLisp, which was a much more interesting language than ISLISP turned out to be. If ISLISP had been based on EuLisp rather than Common Lisp, I think it might not have fallen flat on its face the way it did, because it would have had something to offer beyond what Common Lisp offers. On a related note, Kent Pitman, the guy who actually wrote the ANSI Common Lisp standard, also wrote the ISLISP standard. Of course, he was not the sole designer of either language, but he's the guy who put the design into words. If you're interested in knowing some more about ISLISP, he may be willing to give you some information. He's active on Twitter and comp.lang.lisp (Usenet).
  - kazinator 10y ago
    I don't understand why ISLISP needed an update in 2007. Was the large and vibrant ISLISP world beginning to fragment due to vendors pulling in different directions?
    - groovy2shoes 10y ago
      Honestly, I don't understand why, either. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the differences are between the 1997 edition and the 2007 edition, despite having read both. Perhaps if I were actually an ISLISP programmer, something would've jumped out at me, or if I had read them with the intent of doing comparison (which I may do, now that I think of it). ISLISP's biggest weakness, in my opinion, is that it lacks a standard module system. Perhaps if they decide to do a 2017 update, modules will make it in there ;)
- netsettler 10y ago
  The sponsors are sponsors of the site. I'm not an official charity, so it's not deductible, but I still accept donations from people who appreciate the site and want to defray the costs of hosting it. It's unrelated to the sponsorship of the activity itself. -kmp
  - netsettler 10y ago
    Note well that my remarks here and on islisp.info are my personal remarks, and funding likewise. As discussed in Untold Story, we created a mechanism to do personal things disjoint from what ISO did. Hence islisp.ifo dispenses the public domain version of ISLISP and is in some legal and logical way disjoint from the ISLISP standards process, though with obvious and deliberate parallels. So it's not surprising this funding/sponsorship thing is confusing. When I get back from traveling, maybe I can clarify that on the islisp.info site, at least.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
Nice first person view of history that affected me. Early on, Common Lisp was a bummer for me since my underpowered Xerox 1108 Lisp Machine ran very nicely with InterLisp, but was slow after the Common Lisp upgrade. I came around to appreciating Common Lisp and the first book I wrote, that Springer-Verlag published, was a Common Lisp book. Except for doing occasional consulting projects, mostly machine learning and NLP, I am mostly retired now. In retirement I have considered going full circle back to Common Lisp for my own personal research projects but I am unlikely to do that because there is so much code in Java, Python, etc. that I rely on.
- criddell 10y ago
  I bought a copy of Portable GUI Development with C++ and always liked how clean most of the examples seemed. I was so disappointed to never find an actual cross-platform C++ library that lived up to the book. Was the code pulled from an existing library, or was it just example code of what could be? Either way, thanks. Your book helped me get started in C++ and today I'm still working in C++ and liking it more than ever.
  - mark_l_watson 10y ago
    Thanks! I looked in my archives this morning and couldn't find the code for the book but I did find it on the Internet Archive (archive.org). I put the ancient ZIP file on my web site: http://markwatson.com/opencontentdata/GUI2ND.zip http://markwatson.com/opencontentdata/GUI2ND.zip
    - criddell 10y ago
      I grabbed a copy, thank you. Did you use the GUI library in any "real" projects?
      - mark_l_watson 10y ago
        I did but always in a very hacked up form. That library was limited, but maybe because it was my own code, it was easy to hack on. At work, I morphed just the XWindows part to what we ended up calling ULIB, and it allowed other programmers to write our application for the Navy without learning the details of X Windows. I would extend ULIB as needed, over the course of a year.

70 points by daveloyall 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

That ISLISP phenomenon is curious. It seems that almost overnight, this counter-group whipped a Lisp dialect seemingly out of thin air, and got it ISO standardized. I'm also curious about the role of Vince Manis in the whole thing, (because I knew him as an instructor at the University of British Columbia). http://islisp.info/sponsors.html http://islisp.info/sponsors.html "In addition to organizational support, we appreciate and acknowledge having received personal support from: Vincent Manis"

ruricolist 10y ago
I've gotten the impression in the past that ISLISP was largely based on pre-existing work by Queinnec, but I don't have any proof.
- groovy2shoes 10y ago
  I think it might be fair to say that Christian Queinnec's "Reasonable Lisp" had some influence on the ISLISP committee, but overall ISLISP as a language is very obviously intended to be "compatible" with Common Lisp, in the sense that an implementation could be conformant to both ISLISP and Common Lisp in a single "mode". In fact, Kent Pitman wrote an ISLISP "compatibility package" in Common Lisp in order to make sure it was do-able prior to the ratification of ISLISP. I.e., ISLISP can be implemented as a library for Common Lisp, without the need for a separate interpreter/translator.
lispm 10y ago
The work started in 1988. Early 90s WG16 decided to use a Japanese proposal for Lisp with a CLOS-like object system added. Much of the work came from France, Germany, UK, Japan and the US.
groovy2shoes 10y ago
ISLISP is indeed interesting, albeit more from a political standpoint than a technical one. It really was not an overnight process -- ISO had started the project shortly after the ANSI committee for Common Lisp was formed. There was fear in Europe and in Japan that the US would have too much control over the future of Lisp with only an ANSI standard and no international one. What ISLISP actually wound up being, after about a decade in development, is a crippled subset of Common Lisp, modulo alpha conversion (some things were renamed). Politically, it worked to assuage the fears over American control, but technically it was a flop. As far as I can tell, the only implementation currently available is OpenLisp from Eligis, which is commercial, expensive, and features many extensions to the standard language. I have a hunch that the politics surrounding ISLISP also lead to the demise of EuLisp, which was a much more interesting language than ISLISP turned out to be. If ISLISP had been based on EuLisp rather than Common Lisp, I think it might not have fallen flat on its face the way it did, because it would have had something to offer beyond what Common Lisp offers. On a related note, Kent Pitman, the guy who actually wrote the ANSI Common Lisp standard, also wrote the ISLISP standard. Of course, he was not the sole designer of either language, but he's the guy who put the design into words. If you're interested in knowing some more about ISLISP, he may be willing to give you some information. He's active on Twitter and comp.lang.lisp (Usenet).
- kazinator 10y ago
  I don't understand why ISLISP needed an update in 2007. Was the large and vibrant ISLISP world beginning to fragment due to vendors pulling in different directions?
  - groovy2shoes 10y ago
    Honestly, I don't understand why, either. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the differences are between the 1997 edition and the 2007 edition, despite having read both. Perhaps if I were actually an ISLISP programmer, something would've jumped out at me, or if I had read them with the intent of doing comparison (which I may do, now that I think of it). ISLISP's biggest weakness, in my opinion, is that it lacks a standard module system. Perhaps if they decide to do a 2017 update, modules will make it in there ;)
netsettler 10y ago
The sponsors are sponsors of the site. I'm not an official charity, so it's not deductible, but I still accept donations from people who appreciate the site and want to defray the costs of hosting it. It's unrelated to the sponsorship of the activity itself. -kmp
- netsettler 10y ago
  Note well that my remarks here and on islisp.info are my personal remarks, and funding likewise. As discussed in Untold Story, we created a mechanism to do personal things disjoint from what ISO did. Hence islisp.ifo dispenses the public domain version of ISLISP and is in some legal and logical way disjoint from the ISLISP standards process, though with obvious and deliberate parallels. So it's not surprising this funding/sponsorship thing is confusing. When I get back from traveling, maybe I can clarify that on the islisp.info site, at least.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

Nice first person view of history that affected me. Early on, Common Lisp was a bummer for me since my underpowered Xerox 1108 Lisp Machine ran very nicely with InterLisp, but was slow after the Common Lisp upgrade. I came around to appreciating Common Lisp and the first book I wrote, that Springer-Verlag published, was a Common Lisp book. Except for doing occasional consulting projects, mostly machine learning and NLP, I am mostly retired now. In retirement I have considered going full circle back to Common Lisp for my own personal research projects but I am unlikely to do that because there is so much code in Java, Python, etc. that I rely on.

criddell 10y ago
I bought a copy of Portable GUI Development with C++ and always liked how clean most of the examples seemed. I was so disappointed to never find an actual cross-platform C++ library that lived up to the book. Was the code pulled from an existing library, or was it just example code of what could be? Either way, thanks. Your book helped me get started in C++ and today I'm still working in C++ and liking it more than ever.
- mark_l_watson 10y ago
  Thanks! I looked in my archives this morning and couldn't find the code for the book but I did find it on the Internet Archive (archive.org). I put the ancient ZIP file on my web site: http://markwatson.com/opencontentdata/GUI2ND.zip http://markwatson.com/opencontentdata/GUI2ND.zip
  - criddell 10y ago
    I grabbed a copy, thank you. Did you use the GUI library in any "real" projects?
    - mark_l_watson 10y ago
      I did but always in a very hacked up form. That library was limited, but maybe because it was my own code, it was easy to hack on. At work, I morphed just the XWindows part to what we ended up calling ULIB, and it allowed other programmers to write our application for the Navy without learning the details of X Windows. I would extend ULIB as needed, over the course of a year.