I am being curious, how members of this forum found newLISP (except Lutz ;-)
The first time I found it, was here:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
Website doesn't show newLISP benchmarks anymore. It used to say something like a "LISP implementation with Tk built-in".
At that time, I was looking for a powerful language with Tk interface to do explorative programming. I also wanted to learn LISP (everybody was saying, how cool it is), so it was a good match.
I feel that there are people looking for a language like newLISP and many are pretty happy when they find it. Can we make newLISP more visible?
Fanda
I was learning LISP using clisp and sbcl and getting incredibly sick of the amount of work it takes to do a simple regex in most ansi lisps (since ansi lisp doesn't have any regex and you depend on the implementation or 3rd party libs). Lisp traditionally looks down on regex.
I found newLISP when looking for a lisp with a more modern interface and set of built-in functionality.
Quote from: "Fanda"I am being curious, how members of this forum found newLISP (except Lutz ;-)
if you really want to know, here's my take //http://unbalanced-parentheses.nfshost.com/index.cgi?view-post-id=20060411043500
Quote from: "Fanda"I feel that there are people looking for a language like newLISP and many are pretty happy when they find it. Can we make newLISP more visible?
I'm doing what I can, and so are you :-)! I think a boost could result if it became a scripting language for some major application. But this requires coding skills I don't have... :(
I was seeking at that time (as always) for an
alternative programming language that both gramaticaly-eyed nice
and included networking.. (Im stuck since then to newlisp ;-)
I think I saw it for the first time
It seems so long ago now. Let's see if I can blow the cobwebs from my mind and remember.
I was attempting to use OCaml again after a year of using Ruby exclusively. I was once again getting bogged down with OCaml's complicated object system and decided to give up and begin looking for another language.
I decided to go with a language from the Lisp family, and after test-driving a couple of the other command-line-oriented scripting Lisps, I found out about newLISP from ______. Blank. This means I can't remember exactly where I first saw a reference to newLISP (sorry). I printed up a copy of the manual and began to study it in earnest. My initial superficial understanding of newLISP led to much misunderstanding and confusion. I was close to giving up, when someone made a ridiculous comment about the quality of the writing in the manual. This compelled me to rush to newLISP's defense, so I decided to stick around and try to help out. Getting involved has probably been the single biggest reason for my staying with newLISP. I'm still struggling without a true object system, but Lutz's recent macro gives me hope that one day, newLISP can be used to do OOP as easily as it currently does FP.
Quote from: "fanda"I feel that there are people looking for a language like newLISP and many are pretty happy when they find it.
I think so, too.
Quote from: "fanda also"Can we make newLISP more visible?
This is something I have thought about a lot. Far too many interesting and worthy languages get thrown onto the junk heap of history. In many cases, it was simply because not enough people were made aware of them. This, of course, is called "marketing."
Every post by cormullion on (newLISPer) or Jeff on Artful Code helps with this awareness. Each new GS program written by Norman or newLISP-wiki-based website like Fanda's helps make newLISP more visible. Hans-Peter's NeoBook work. Dmi's Russian introduction. Peter's code snippets. Ryon's fan club. Everyone creating something from their passion for newLISP, contributing to the overall work of making this melodious language heard above the din.
m i c h a e l
I also was looking for a language which included everything. Norman pointed me to newLisp, since then I am using it for most my programming ;-)
Peter
As an longtime autolisp programmer I was always searching for lisp-alternatives running outside autocad but fairly compatibel with autolisp.
At that time (around 2001/2002) I evaluated every lisp I get my fingers on. (xlisp,corman-lisp,Lispworks etc.)
One day I ran across newLISP and the old forum.
I start learning and asking for features and Lutz was so kind to add much of the stuff (from setq to infix.lsp etc.)
The most important thing for me was the release of newLISP.dll which allows the easy embedding in other enviroments.
Building around newLISP.dll I worked on the integration into the windows authoring tool neobook
which grow to a powerfull framework for windows development.
The results out of this framework are very similar to newLISP itself: small, fast, powerfull, single file an self contained.
newLISP is the perfect scripting language for such a GUI tool.
And naturally it fits best to my motto: Use the right tool to get the job done.
;-)
Quote from: "rickyboy"I think I saw it for the first time
This is the my case too.
Quote from: "Fanda"The first time I found it, was here:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
Website doesn't show newLISP benchmarks anymore.
I wasn't aware that they have newLISP some time ago. Funny that I am now trying to re-implement some benchmarks from that site (just for fun and for learning the newLISP way, no intent to post them to the site). Maybe it is a good idea to open a local contest for these benchmarks implementations here on forum? Writing such a code snippets may be a good way to learn some new tricks.
A set of benchmarks would be good. Not to compare with other languages - I think that's another thing altogether - but to compare performance of newLISP on different machines, different release versions, etc...
The trouble with benchmarking is simply that the code starts to get obsessed with raw speed, and things like elegance, maintainability, and readability all suffer. Eventually you think "why not use assembler if it's got to be the fastest.."
see also here:
http://newlisp.org/benchmarks/
Note that this was not a subjective selection of tests, but rather offered (almost) all, which could be implemented in newLISP at that time. I remember there were two missing, for using p-threads, which newLISP doesn't have, because it uses UNIX fork().
Quote...but to compare performance of newLISP on different machines...
whatever computer I can get my hands on, I compile newLISP and benchmark it. I
Lutz
I recently discovered NewLisp in a link on the Rebol mailing list. It seems to share many of the features that've made Rebol useful to me (small file size, built-in GUI functionality, cross platform binaries, "batteries included" philosophy, etc.). I love that it enables and embodies a more mainstream approach to licensing, community involvement, and connection with other common development tools (dlls, sqlite, etc.). Moving from Rebol to Newlisp seem pretty intuitive so far - I'm looking forward to learning more :)
I was (and I'm still) a fan of Logo and I wanted to learn Lisp, the "forerunner" of Logo, but didn't find a Lisp that satisfied me (neither CLisp, nor XLisp, etc...). So I tried Scheme, a little too complex for me and too "heavy" in its implementation. I tried Python, simpler but still so heavy.
And by dint of searching (Google, etc.) I found NewLISP that I tested out. And then Rebol, very close to Logo, with its limitations which make me come back to NewLISP.
Now I'm using
;)
Quote from: "newBert"Now I'm using
Thanks newBert! I like checking out these lesser-known languages.
And WOW, Nothing has been clearer than the 5 minutes I spent reading
Hello, this is my first post.
I discovered newLisp in Rebol mailing list.
I'm a professional programmer, and newLisp seems really impressive.
Now I'm concentrating my few resources in newLisp, Java, rich client development (I want to do that in newLisp ;-) ).
I almost finished "introduction to newLisp", then I will "attak" the official manual.
Good newLisp to everybody :-)
Greetings!
QuoteI almost finished "introduction to newLisp"
me too :-)
I really don't remember how I found newlisp. I think the discovery was obscurely related to rebol. It really irritates me that I don't know newlisp better than I do. I think I'll go back over the introduction myself.
There was a "languages" thread in the arch linux forum, in which somebody asked what everybody used. I said newlisp, somebody else asked why. I haven't replied yet...
I've found newLISP in a post in //http://www.linux.org.ru/
QuoteThere was a "languages" thread in the arch linux forum, in which somebody asked what everybody used. I said newlisp, somebody else asked why. I haven't replied yet...
I wonder what sort of 'why' the questioner was asking. There's a "why the hell do you bother with a completely broken non-standard dialect of the world's greatest programming language when there's nothing wrong with ..." sort. And then there's the "why do you use the language and will it be a good thing for me, given that we're both in this forum..." sort.
(My experience of internet forums tempts me to favour the former sort. :-)
Quote from: "forum guy"
What do you like about that one? I wasn't impressed by it, but I haven't actually heard from any of its fans yet.
Sounds like he's at least a little bit open about it.
Hope so!
For me, the coolest things about newLISP are that it runs on most platforms and OSes, it's dedicated to keeping everything simple, and that the community is very helpful.
From the Arch Linux home page:
Quotea lightweight and flexible linux distribution that tries to Keep It Simple.
...
Our strong community is diverse and helpful, and we pride ourselves on the range of skillsets and uses for Arch that stem from it.
So - just like newLISP!
I worked with Lutz for a few months, and I've been hooked ever since :)
I read a recent article about Common LISP and decided to check it out. I run WIN XP and wanted to find a freeware version to evaluate, so I went on a Google search. I settled on one that required an activation code sent via email. Well, it CHOKED on my GMAIL account, so as instructed, I sent an email to verify this was a legitimate email address. NO REPLY!!! So much for THAT implementation.
So, back to Google and I saw newLISP. Read the propaganda, err..., home page text, and liked seeing that it was SMALL., and even though interpreted, actually has decent performance. Then noted the forum is active and that there are regular updates.
I really don't care about whatever bashing the purist Common LISP or Schemer's blather about it. The way I see it, it is s LISt Processing language, so that makes it a LISP dialect, period.
DrDave
newBert is the person who introduced newLISP to me.
Thanks, that was interesting to read.
I found newLisp very recently, but cannot remember where. I was going through a number of implementations, and when found newLisp, was really struck by how well thought-out the package was, that I could do scripting immediately, that documentation is informal, modern (full of examples and cookbook recipies, rathern than the insane formality from 1970s with "big" lisps).
All APIs were there, the tiny standalone executable could be started in tens of copies or used to distribute scripts between machines - I was fascinated by how well thought-out it was, as I already said. A true hacker's tool in the original sense of this word.
I try to mention newLisp where I can, but cannot say I succeeded much so far.
One way could be to write (why do not we pool our efforts together here?) some article under a good catchy title and publish it in some Linux on-line magazine, the Perl Journal or similar (under the guise of comparison with the perl approach or sth) , push NewLisp as "perl 6 that is already here" ( that is the way I think of NewLisp myself, in my head - this is much of what I would dream perl6 to be - but for the problem that perl6 is NOT except as a fantasy, and it's completely unknown when it could get born into the world )
I'd try to find a well-known sysadmin, linux and/or scripting language on-line publication and try to write a series or a column there.
..maybe also write some "newLisp poetry" - like that Perl "poetry", when the text of the program that parses OK reads like a poem ;))
In 2004, I posted a question to a scheme mailing list, said a little about
my needs and solicited comments for a recommended scheme.
An individual on this list, who also codes in CL, scheme and prolog
mentioned newlisp. It has been just in last few months tho', that I
have been seriously learning newlisp.
I currently also code in Python, rebol, and javascript. After many years
coding in C/C++, I pretty much retired that codeset in 2001.
I got here from a URL on Hacker News. I've been quite happy ever since. And while I'm implementing my current project(porting my CPAN PGN: modules) in both newLisp and common lisp(clisp [I think] via slime and emacs) and will eventually get around to scheme, ruby and python, I've got to tell you that newLisp wins hands down. The multiple languages help me make improvements across the board and is an excellent way to keep familiar with any changes there might be.
Quote from: "HPW"As an longtime autolisp programmer I was always searching for lisp-alternatives running outside autocad but fairly compatibel with autolisp.
At that time (around 2001/2002) I evaluated every lisp I get my fingers on. (xlisp,corman-lisp,Lispworks etc.)
–hsm
p.s. I started with AutoCad 1.4, haven't done much since 200i...
I programmed autolisp a bit in 1993-1994. An experience that I think opened my mind to newlisp.
I _do_ believe that python might be a better choice for a team programming environment where there are multiple programmers working on the same codebase. I attribute that opinion to python's stricter engineering OOP approach and scoping. It isn't an issue for me, however, as in my company, my partner and I work on different code bases - he's a perl monger...
Given that the rebol developer's are indifferent to 64-bit issues and rebol is not open source - it is likely that where I would be otherwise working in rebol, I will soon be working in newlisp.
Python is nice for many things, but I prototype even faster in newLISP. I use Python for many of our main applications, but I am finding that in many cases, I end up using newLISP or common lisp due to their speed.
Jeff, - just curious - do you have more than one programmer working on one codebase?
I find development much faster in rebol than in python, and that includes
prototyping, and I would imagine similar comparisons between
newlisp and python.
When the customer expresses the concern that - should I be no longer
available to maintain code or should he/she have to find another
programmer for any reason at all - I have to concur that it would be
easier to find a python programmer than it would be to find a rebol
programmer.
In the case of newlisp, I'm sure that any scheme or CL programmer worth
their salt would be able to take over newlisp code. Especially if the
programmer documents well and documentation for both newlisp itself
and the custom code is part of the code package delivered.
If I'm right, it is a selling point that rebol doesn't have....
I can't speak for rebol, but yes, with multiple programmers, Python is easier to maintain. The cost of that is that you lose a lot of flexibility and speed.
I love Python. I use it for most projects. But when speed is a real issue, I use cl, which can be compiled. I have used ocaml before as well, but it does not have the packaging tools that cl has (like asdf) or support for threading.
newLISP, though, is what I often use initially when I need to speed something from python up. It's much faster than Python, but few interpreted languages can keep up with compiled code.
I like newLISP because I can concisely write a huge amount of functionality into a simple, small, space (the same reason I like Python). And in many respects, it is easier to maintain, because it's a bottom-up language.
For example, I am now rewriting a program I wrote in common lisp in newLISP (which means I am having to write a *ton* of support code that was already written for me in cl.) However, it does not get a huge boost from compiling. What it really needs is high concurrency, responsiveness, and low memory usage, which is what nl offers me.[/i]
Although the syntax is different, there are a lot of similarities
between rebol and newlisp. I like the way that emacs handles
newlisp - it "understands" newlisp better than it does rebol.
And there is some improvement in the way that newlisp reports
errors (over rebol), but python really nails errors right down to the
file name and line number. Can't beat that.
Python does have much better debugging tools than almost any other language (note that I did not say error handling; I prefer conditions to exceptions.)
One thing that I **really** miss in newLISP is a profiler. I might have to write one using the new hooks into the interpreter.
I learned Lisp at Linköpings university in the introduction programming course, we did use Allegro Common Lisp(Franz, Inc.). Later I think I found newLisp while locking for free implementations of Lisp, also working for windows XP, because that was what I was using at the moment.
I don't remember exactly but I think it was from this list I found it:
http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation
This morning I found the site and discovered that i can write this:
('(1 2 3) 1)
and get 2, oh simplicity!
I also found out that i don't have to run newLISP on top of java(like clojure) or PLT(like arc), and i still get a modern dialect of lisp with an active community and descent libraries.