5 ms·

Common Lisp Quick Reference

45 points by nickb 18y ago

hsmyers 18y ago
Excellent effort, as elegant as the language. Page on top should be card stock. Q&D method is to print all as instructed then take pile to Kinko's. The have both coil binding, folders and saddle style staplers. Run you about 5 bucks. Some thing(sadly out of print) for Mathematica would be more like 35 bucks so think yourself fortunate...
babo 18y ago
Nice to have, but how many of you actually using Common Lisp?
- astine 18y ago
  I am as well.
- jsmcgd 18y ago
  Are you being a tease?
- Hexstream 18y ago
  Me. Wondering what's the real motivation behind that question though.
- briancooley 18y ago
  I am.
- qwph 18y ago
  Now I have a quick reference, I might start using Common Lisp.
- tdoggette 18y ago
  That question is rhetorical everywhere but here.
- rplevy 18y ago
  I use Lisp whenever I can. I think most people who have been initiated into thinking in Lisp would prefer to use it over other languages in most circumstances. Many recent languages have grown to accommodate Lisp thinking in differently branded packages for this reason. It is fair to view Lisp as the ultimate high-level language that will persist as other languages come and go. The main reason is its ability to process itself. That's a key innovation that makes it more than just another programming language. There are programming languages, and then there is Lisp.
brfox 18y ago
I was about to try and finally learn some lisp but now I am scared... Are there really nearly 1000 symbols? All in the same namespace? I thought you guys were always trashing php for having too many symbols.
- ced 18y ago
  Then you could always go for scheme, it's smaller. But it doesn't really matter. You can start with a tutorial, and just work with the core vocabulary, then gradually expand. I've been doing CL almost full-time for a year, and still, every once in a while, I find out that one function I'd defined is exactly the same as a built-in that I didn't know about. One namespace for the built-in functions is not a problem in practice, it just means that you don't have a de facto categorization of the commands like in Python. This sometimes makes life painful when looking for commands, but no big deal. I sure wish the hyperspec was better hyperlinked though. The See Also section is abysmal. find is not connected to member: What the hell. I also find that C-c-d-a in slime is helpful for looking for the right command.
- parenthesis 18y ago
  978, actually. It's not as bad as it sounds, when you consider that that includes not only (the names of) functions and macros, (of which there are many groups of similar/related ones, e.g. car, cdr, cadr, cdar etc. or char<, char>, char= etc.,) but also system constants and variables, and types and classes.
  - Hexstream 18y ago
    Also there's some functions you use all the time so you'll get to know them quickly (ex: find, remove, push, mapcar, assoc) and others you'll probably never need (ex: tagbody, prog, progv). In short you only have to learn a fraction of those 978 to be able to make something significant. You can consult http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html when you need deeper knowledge in a particular topic.

45 points by nickb 18y ago

Excellent effort, as elegant as the language. Page on top should be card stock. Q&D method is to print all as instructed then take pile to Kinko's. The have both coil binding, folders and saddle style staplers. Run you about 5 bucks. Some thing(sadly out of print) for Mathematica would be more like 35 bucks so think yourself fortunate...

babo 18y ago

Nice to have, but how many of you actually using Common Lisp?

astine 18y ago
I am as well.
jsmcgd 18y ago
Are you being a tease?
Hexstream 18y ago
Me. Wondering what's the real motivation behind that question though.
briancooley 18y ago
I am.
qwph 18y ago
Now I have a quick reference, I might start using Common Lisp.
tdoggette 18y ago
That question is rhetorical everywhere but here.
rplevy 18y ago
I use Lisp whenever I can. I think most people who have been initiated into thinking in Lisp would prefer to use it over other languages in most circumstances. Many recent languages have grown to accommodate Lisp thinking in differently branded packages for this reason. It is fair to view Lisp as the ultimate high-level language that will persist as other languages come and go. The main reason is its ability to process itself. That's a key innovation that makes it more than just another programming language. There are programming languages, and then there is Lisp.

brfox 18y ago

I was about to try and finally learn some lisp but now I am scared... Are there really nearly 1000 symbols? All in the same namespace? I thought you guys were always trashing php for having too many symbols.

ced 18y ago
Then you could always go for scheme, it's smaller. But it doesn't really matter. You can start with a tutorial, and just work with the core vocabulary, then gradually expand. I've been doing CL almost full-time for a year, and still, every once in a while, I find out that one function I'd defined is exactly the same as a built-in that I didn't know about. One namespace for the built-in functions is not a problem in practice, it just means that you don't have a de facto categorization of the commands like in Python. This sometimes makes life painful when looking for commands, but no big deal. I sure wish the hyperspec was better hyperlinked though. The See Also section is abysmal. find is not connected to member: What the hell. I also find that C-c-d-a in slime is helpful for looking for the right command.
parenthesis 18y ago
978, actually. It's not as bad as it sounds, when you consider that that includes not only (the names of) functions and macros, (of which there are many groups of similar/related ones, e.g. car, cdr, cadr, cdar etc. or char<, char>, char= etc.,) but also system constants and variables, and types and classes.
- Hexstream 18y ago
  Also there's some functions you use all the time so you'll get to know them quickly (ex: find, remove, push, mapcar, assoc) and others you'll probably never need (ex: tagbody, prog, progv). In short you only have to learn a fraction of those 978 to be able to make something significant. You can consult http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html when you need deeper knowledge in a particular topic.