4 ms·

I don't think anyone argues or don't understand this concept. The problem is: instead of answering the question: "How do I create executable?" people got lectur

by skolos 18y ago

I don't think anyone argues or don't understand this concept. The problem is: instead of answering the question: "How do I create executable?" people got lectured on why they shouldn't do that. I think it is much more productive for everyone just to give an answer and then, once you get the usual follow up question quickly explain why executable is big. This way lisp community might get more users. But as it stands now all we hear is complaints that lisp community is bunch of jerks - the answers people get for this simple question is one of the reason why people think that the lisp community is not friendly.

anamax 18y ago
> I don't think anyone argues or don't understand this concept. The author of the original complaint clearly didn't. As he wrote: "I asked the question on Usenet, trying to explain that not everyone I wanted to give programs to had Lisp on their computer." Lisp is the run-time for lisp "executables". Just as one can't run a C executable that depends on a dynamically loaded libc on a machine that doesn't have a dynamically loadable libc, one can't run a lisp executable without the relevant run-time. This isn't an odd concept. Many windows programs depend on dlls.
- tjr 18y ago
  You are correct in that I did not understand the matter when I first asked the question. However, the replies that I got did nothing to really answer it; it was just handwaving. That was ten years ago. I understand Lisp systems quite a bit better now, but I maintain that it is a valid question. Why? You have made the point that C programs can be built to rely upon dynamic libraries, and indeed they can, and this is similar to Lisp programs relying upon the Lisp runtime. However, C programs can also be built statically, and not have to rely upon additional libraries being present. This is not only possible, but fairly common, especially for simple programs. If a Lisp novice is trying to build, say, "Hello World," and expects a static executable as a result, why is that so much to ask? In fact, it is a lot to ask of Lisp, but if you are new to Lisp, you are not likely to understand why. I wouldn't expect a novice C programmer to write "Hello, World" such that it depends upon dynamic libraries; moreover, a novice ought to be able to stay busy learning C and writing ostensibly useful programs for quite a while without doing dynamic linking. Unfortunately, it seems that too many Lisp novices don't get the answer that you have provided (which is quite a useful answer). Instead, their question is brushed off as irrelevant. At least this has been the case in the past; I could not say if anything has changed.
  - anamax 18y ago
    Huh? You said that you were a "C programmer" when you asked about running lisp executables. When someone says "I'm a C programmer", as most folks asking about "lisp executables" on comp.lang.lisp do, I think that it's reasonable to assume that they've heard of and understand dynamic libraries. Some lisps have static linking, some don't. I'm sorry that this was a show stopper for you. Would an "install shield" builder, as is typically used for windows programs, have helped? I don't suppose that you had the same reaction to Java, Python, Perl, awk, sed, tcl....
    - tjr 18y ago
      When delivering an application to an end-user, hoops that the end-user has to jump through in order to run the application ought to be considered. The optimal route, in my opinion, is to deliver a totally self-contained application that doesn't require the user to install any runtime systems whatsoever. In that light, yes, Java is suboptimal. However, installing the JRE is pretty straightforward for end-users. Many users even already have the JRE installed. Asking an end-user to install CLisp is a whole other kettle of fish.
    - skolos 18y ago
      This post is proving my point: instead of answering simple questions being asked, lispers start lecturing and picking on other languages. You shouldn't know about static and dynamic linking, interpreters and compilers and other under the hood stuff to write simple lisp program (or even quite complex) and show it off to your friend without installing whole lisp implementation (maybe emacs with slime too?) on your friend's computer. Why lispers are so elitist? Lisp is good not because it is the hardest language to learn, it is actually quite easy to pick up basic stuff, lisp is good because it is very powerful. Why make it harder for novices to try this language? This is not the way to develop the community.
      - anamax 18y ago
        Looking above, we see that you admitted that your question was answered. Lisp "executables" typically require run-times, just like "executables" in many other languages. However, now the goal posts are moving. The original question was how to deploy a lisp program. That typically requires the relevant run times, just as it does in every other language that uses dynamic linking and/or interpretation. (Emacs is not required to run lisp. Heck, it isn't even required to write it. Likewise, slime is a development convenience. If it's too much trouble, don't bother.) I mentioned other languages to demonstrate that the problem is not lisp-specific. To write a program in any language, someone has to install a compiler or interpreter and their dependencies. Folks who can't/won't do that themselves are stuck with whatever came with their system. Again, this is not lisp-specific. It would be nice if a reasonable lisp came pre-installed as part of linux distributions. But, like lots of other languages, it doesn't. If you can't or won't install runtimes, there are lots of things that you can't deploy. (That's why I asked about an installation system to help automate this work.) If you can't or won't install a compiler and/or interpreter, there are lots of languages that you can't write.

by skolos 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

> I don't think anyone argues or don't understand this concept. The author of the original complaint clearly didn't. As he wrote: "I asked the question on Usenet, trying to explain that not everyone I wanted to give programs to had Lisp on their computer." Lisp is the run-time for lisp "executables". Just as one can't run a C executable that depends on a dynamically loaded libc on a machine that doesn't have a dynamically loadable libc, one can't run a lisp executable without the relevant run-time. This isn't an odd concept. Many windows programs depend on dlls.

tjr 18y ago
You are correct in that I did not understand the matter when I first asked the question. However, the replies that I got did nothing to really answer it; it was just handwaving. That was ten years ago. I understand Lisp systems quite a bit better now, but I maintain that it is a valid question. Why? You have made the point that C programs can be built to rely upon dynamic libraries, and indeed they can, and this is similar to Lisp programs relying upon the Lisp runtime. However, C programs can also be built statically, and not have to rely upon additional libraries being present. This is not only possible, but fairly common, especially for simple programs. If a Lisp novice is trying to build, say, "Hello World," and expects a static executable as a result, why is that so much to ask? In fact, it is a lot to ask of Lisp, but if you are new to Lisp, you are not likely to understand why. I wouldn't expect a novice C programmer to write "Hello, World" such that it depends upon dynamic libraries; moreover, a novice ought to be able to stay busy learning C and writing ostensibly useful programs for quite a while without doing dynamic linking. Unfortunately, it seems that too many Lisp novices don't get the answer that you have provided (which is quite a useful answer). Instead, their question is brushed off as irrelevant. At least this has been the case in the past; I could not say if anything has changed.
- anamax 18y ago
  Huh? You said that you were a "C programmer" when you asked about running lisp executables. When someone says "I'm a C programmer", as most folks asking about "lisp executables" on comp.lang.lisp do, I think that it's reasonable to assume that they've heard of and understand dynamic libraries. Some lisps have static linking, some don't. I'm sorry that this was a show stopper for you. Would an "install shield" builder, as is typically used for windows programs, have helped? I don't suppose that you had the same reaction to Java, Python, Perl, awk, sed, tcl....
  - tjr 18y ago
    When delivering an application to an end-user, hoops that the end-user has to jump through in order to run the application ought to be considered. The optimal route, in my opinion, is to deliver a totally self-contained application that doesn't require the user to install any runtime systems whatsoever. In that light, yes, Java is suboptimal. However, installing the JRE is pretty straightforward for end-users. Many users even already have the JRE installed. Asking an end-user to install CLisp is a whole other kettle of fish.
  - skolos 18y ago
    This post is proving my point: instead of answering simple questions being asked, lispers start lecturing and picking on other languages. You shouldn't know about static and dynamic linking, interpreters and compilers and other under the hood stuff to write simple lisp program (or even quite complex) and show it off to your friend without installing whole lisp implementation (maybe emacs with slime too?) on your friend's computer. Why lispers are so elitist? Lisp is good not because it is the hardest language to learn, it is actually quite easy to pick up basic stuff, lisp is good because it is very powerful. Why make it harder for novices to try this language? This is not the way to develop the community.
    - anamax 18y ago
      Looking above, we see that you admitted that your question was answered. Lisp "executables" typically require run-times, just like "executables" in many other languages. However, now the goal posts are moving. The original question was how to deploy a lisp program. That typically requires the relevant run times, just as it does in every other language that uses dynamic linking and/or interpretation. (Emacs is not required to run lisp. Heck, it isn't even required to write it. Likewise, slime is a development convenience. If it's too much trouble, don't bother.) I mentioned other languages to demonstrate that the problem is not lisp-specific. To write a program in any language, someone has to install a compiler or interpreter and their dependencies. Folks who can't/won't do that themselves are stuck with whatever came with their system. Again, this is not lisp-specific. It would be nice if a reasonable lisp came pre-installed as part of linux distributions. But, like lots of other languages, it doesn't. If you can't or won't install runtimes, there are lots of things that you can't deploy. (That's why I asked about an installation system to help automate this work.) If you can't or won't install a compiler and/or interpreter, there are lots of languages that you can't write.