5 ms·

I would love to see cffi, opengl and one of the gtk binding libs have better documentation.

by ludston 14y ago

orthecreedence 14y ago
The opengl bindings don't really need documentation, as they're automatically generated to mirror the C API. Really, if you want to know how to use `cl-opengl`, you memorize a simple naming convention and the rest is a matter of "how do I use OpenGL," not "how do I use cl-opengl?"
- ludston 14y ago
  That's great, but I haven't learned C. Besides that, leveraging documentation from another language is a hack. As it stands, there isn't documentation around for learning to create 3d graphics without needing to know other languages first.
  - pavelludiq 14y ago
    Are you trolling? First off, learning C well enough to understand opengl documentation will take you much less time that understanding opengl it self(since you'll only need to read and not write C). You have a problem, people gave you a solution, having separate cl docs for opengl that have THE SAME contents, but using lisp function names instead of C ones(as it was explained, it is simple function to transform one into the other in your head). What the hell do you want? PS I forgot why I stopped commenting on HN threads about lisp. If you read the old usenet, this kind of discussion has been plaguing lisp since day one. People complain, and when given the solution, they just start bitching about something else, avoiding the solution. There are no docs, now the docs are in C, what else? As I've become part of the lisp community, I learned the proper way to fix this, If I encounter deficiency in the lisp ecosystem, I deal with it if I can, and If I can't I politely ask the author/maintainer if they have time to work on the issue. If they don't have the time, I simply accept reality, and move on with my problems. Bitching on HN solves nothing. Honestly, why lisp? Why do people have this supreme need to express their dissatisfaction with a language, with libraries developed by humans in their spare time away from their lives, for free. Be fucking happy, and help out if you care about lisp, otherwise, just shut up!
    - ludston 14y ago
      Why are you angry? It look like you've decided that if people complain about something, those people must be broken and not the system. And why do people complain about Lisp? It's because the syntax is amazing. It's an incredible language to write in. It is more expressive than anything anyone has ever used, but then they can't do anything with that because it takes so much more effort with lisp to do things that are taken for granted in other languages. GUI libraries and frameworks are so easy with C based languages, because they contain powerful tools that I don't have to write myself.
      - pavelludiq 14y ago
        GUI libraries and frameworks are so easy with C based languages, because they contain powerful tools that I don't have to write myself. But you DO have to write them your self. Thats just how open source works. Open source isn't about getting free stuff. People had to write those tools, and they did, because they cared. Lisp isn't so great because McCarty made it great, it's great because for 50 years people worked fucking hard to make it great. Standardizing common lisp took 10 years and a shit ton of money. Every library took months or years out of someones life. You get all that for FREE. If you really care about lisp, you will actually work to make it better. You will be one of those who spend their time and money on it. Being one of the countless people complaining on forums impresses no one, only makes your ego feel better, doesn't actually help at all. In fact, it's hurtful to lisp, because curious people might read your comments and conclude that lisp isn't worth it for them, and for some of them, it might be, it certainly was for me. So that is why I'm angry. I'm actually trying to help you and lisp, not trying to insult people. If you care about lisp, you'll make it better, if you don't, just do something else, and be happy with it, if lisp can't make you happy. Complaining is a non solution, and I dislike non solutions.
  - orthecreedence 14y ago
    It's NOT a hack because the bindings are calling directly into C. CFFI is a way for lisp to directly run C functions, and a CFFI wrapper does just that: for every function that exists in the OpenGL API, the same function (with the same arguments) exists in the CFFI OpenGL bindings. Duplicating documentation needlessly is a hack. If your library that you program uses another library, are you required to document that other library as well as your own? No, that library already has documentation. If you want to learn OpenGL, learn a tiny bit of C. You know what? Learn a tiny bit of C either way. It's the foundation at the core of every program written, no matter what language. Plus, OpenGL is a lot more complicated than C, so you've got your work cut out for you if you can't handle C.
    - ludston 14y ago
      Thankyou for changing my perspective. I've used a fair few high level programming languages, but it's time to get closer to the metal.
- ripter 14y ago
  And where do I find this "simple naming convention"? I tried google and found repos to the project, but nothing that told me how to read the C documentation and translate it into LISP.
  - pavelludiq 14y ago
    I've never used cl-opengl, but the usual nameing convention for lisp names is as follows: name-with-multiple-words *global-variable* so GLOBAL_VARIABLE and NameWithMultipleWords or name_with_multiple_words are easy to figure out. Any body who has used lisp for more than a few days knows how to name things, and since the combinations of naming schemes in C is finite, figuring this out is close to common sense. so glLoadIdentity() in lisp is (gl:load-identity). Happy Hacking!
pnathan 14y ago
I don't know CFFI well enough to take a stab at it. The github manual has a lot of words in it, afaict. :-) However, I've been longing for getting one of the GTK bindings working for me; when I do that I'll contribute back some docs.
Guthur 14y ago
...And cffi is one of the better documented libraries, I have used it quite a bit and have had very little trouble working it out.

I would love to see cffi, opengl and one of the gtk binding libs have better documentation.

by ludston 14y ago

I would love to see cffi, opengl and one of the gtk binding libs have better documentation.

The opengl bindings don't really need documentation, as they're automatically generated to mirror the C API. Really, if you want to know how to use `cl-opengl`, you memorize a simple naming convention and the rest is a matter of "how do I use OpenGL," not "how do I use cl-opengl?"

ludston 14y ago
That's great, but I haven't learned C. Besides that, leveraging documentation from another language is a hack. As it stands, there isn't documentation around for learning to create 3d graphics without needing to know other languages first.
- pavelludiq 14y ago
  Are you trolling? First off, learning C well enough to understand opengl documentation will take you much less time that understanding opengl it self(since you'll only need to read and not write C). You have a problem, people gave you a solution, having separate cl docs for opengl that have THE SAME contents, but using lisp function names instead of C ones(as it was explained, it is simple function to transform one into the other in your head). What the hell do you want? PS I forgot why I stopped commenting on HN threads about lisp. If you read the old usenet, this kind of discussion has been plaguing lisp since day one. People complain, and when given the solution, they just start bitching about something else, avoiding the solution. There are no docs, now the docs are in C, what else? As I've become part of the lisp community, I learned the proper way to fix this, If I encounter deficiency in the lisp ecosystem, I deal with it if I can, and If I can't I politely ask the author/maintainer if they have time to work on the issue. If they don't have the time, I simply accept reality, and move on with my problems. Bitching on HN solves nothing. Honestly, why lisp? Why do people have this supreme need to express their dissatisfaction with a language, with libraries developed by humans in their spare time away from their lives, for free. Be fucking happy, and help out if you care about lisp, otherwise, just shut up!
  - ludston 14y ago
    Why are you angry? It look like you've decided that if people complain about something, those people must be broken and not the system. And why do people complain about Lisp? It's because the syntax is amazing. It's an incredible language to write in. It is more expressive than anything anyone has ever used, but then they can't do anything with that because it takes so much more effort with lisp to do things that are taken for granted in other languages. GUI libraries and frameworks are so easy with C based languages, because they contain powerful tools that I don't have to write myself.
    - pavelludiq 14y ago
      GUI libraries and frameworks are so easy with C based languages, because they contain powerful tools that I don't have to write myself. But you DO have to write them your self. Thats just how open source works. Open source isn't about getting free stuff. People had to write those tools, and they did, because they cared. Lisp isn't so great because McCarty made it great, it's great because for 50 years people worked fucking hard to make it great. Standardizing common lisp took 10 years and a shit ton of money. Every library took months or years out of someones life. You get all that for FREE. If you really care about lisp, you will actually work to make it better. You will be one of those who spend their time and money on it. Being one of the countless people complaining on forums impresses no one, only makes your ego feel better, doesn't actually help at all. In fact, it's hurtful to lisp, because curious people might read your comments and conclude that lisp isn't worth it for them, and for some of them, it might be, it certainly was for me. So that is why I'm angry. I'm actually trying to help you and lisp, not trying to insult people. If you care about lisp, you'll make it better, if you don't, just do something else, and be happy with it, if lisp can't make you happy. Complaining is a non solution, and I dislike non solutions.
- orthecreedence 14y ago
  It's NOT a hack because the bindings are calling directly into C. CFFI is a way for lisp to directly run C functions, and a CFFI wrapper does just that: for every function that exists in the OpenGL API, the same function (with the same arguments) exists in the CFFI OpenGL bindings. Duplicating documentation needlessly is a hack. If your library that you program uses another library, are you required to document that other library as well as your own? No, that library already has documentation. If you want to learn OpenGL, learn a tiny bit of C. You know what? Learn a tiny bit of C either way. It's the foundation at the core of every program written, no matter what language. Plus, OpenGL is a lot more complicated than C, so you've got your work cut out for you if you can't handle C.
  - ludston 14y ago
    Thankyou for changing my perspective. I've used a fair few high level programming languages, but it's time to get closer to the metal.
ripter 14y ago
And where do I find this "simple naming convention"? I tried google and found repos to the project, but nothing that told me how to read the C documentation and translate it into LISP.
- pavelludiq 14y ago
  I've never used cl-opengl, but the usual nameing convention for lisp names is as follows: name-with-multiple-words *global-variable* so GLOBAL_VARIABLE and NameWithMultipleWords or name_with_multiple_words are easy to figure out. Any body who has used lisp for more than a few days knows how to name things, and since the combinations of naming schemes in C is finite, figuring this out is close to common sense. so glLoadIdentity() in lisp is (gl:load-identity). Happy Hacking!

pnathan 14y ago

I don't know CFFI well enough to take a stab at it. The github manual has a lot of words in it, afaict. :-) However, I've been longing for getting one of the GTK bindings working for me; when I do that I'll contribute back some docs.

Guthur 14y ago

...And cffi is one of the better documented libraries, I have used it quite a bit and have had very little trouble working it out.