Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #400622 > unrolled thread

Re: Resources to learn common lisp?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-07-31 07:17 +0800
    Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-31 12:21 -0300
      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-01 01:48 +0800
        Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 13:13 -0300
          Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-05 21:48 +0000
            Re: Resources to learn common lisp? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-06 09:05 +0200
            Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C (was: Re: Resources to learn common lisp?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 05:33 +0800
              Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2026-08-10 01:11 -0700
                Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 13:10 -0700
              Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 17:41 -0300
                Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-10 23:53 +0000
                  Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-11 14:29 +0000
                  kqueues and port_create() (was: Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-12 07:51 +0800
                    Re: kqueues and port_create() Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2026-08-11 20:59 -0700
                      Re: kqueues and port_create() Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-12 13:07 +0800
                        Re: kqueues and port_create() Alan Bawden <alan@csail.mit.edu> - 2026-08-12 03:23 -0400
                          Re: kqueues and port_create() Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-12 07:50 +0000
                            Re: kqueues and port_create() Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-13 11:33 +0800
                          Re: kqueues and port_create() Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2026-08-12 02:22 -0700
                            Re: kqueues and port_create() Alan Bawden <alan@csail.mit.edu> - 2026-08-12 20:55 -0400
                          Re: kqueues and port_create() Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-13 11:37 +0800
                      Re: kqueues and port_create() "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 12:59 -0700
                  Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-14 12:26 +0100
                D.N.S. in Common Lisp (was: Re: Manipulating C code at the AST level, in C) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-12 07:59 +0800
                  Re: D.N.S. in Common Lisp Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-12 09:01 -0300
          Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-12 13:18 +0800
            Re: Resources to learn common lisp? bixbox <noreply@example.invalid> - 2026-08-12 10:16 +0200
              Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-13 02:18 +0000
                Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-13 04:56 +0200
                  Re: Resources to learn common lisp? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 21:13 -0700
                  Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-13 12:25 -0300
                    Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-13 19:01 +0200
                      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 14:50 -0700
                      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-14 08:27 -0300
                        Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-15 03:18 +0000
                    Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-14 02:47 +0000
                    Re: Resources to learn common lisp? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-14 12:20 +0000
                      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-16 15:37 -0300
                  Re: Resources to learn common lisp? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-08-14 12:17 +0000
                    Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-14 16:31 +0200
                Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-13 11:29 +0800
                Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 15:30 +0300
                  Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-14 16:45 +0200
                    Re: Resources to learn common lisp? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-08-14 17:15 +0200
                      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-08-14 19:51 +0200
                      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 12:05 -0700
      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-31 22:46 +0000
        Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-01 07:38 +0800
          Re: Resources to learn common lisp? steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-08-04 22:26 -0400
        Re: Resources to learn common lisp? tfb <tfb@work.it.out> - 2026-08-01 09:08 +0000
          Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-01 07:49 -0400
            Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-01 23:37 +0000
              Re: Resources to learn common lisp? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-01 16:54 -0700
            Re: Resources to learn common lisp? tfb <tfb@work.it.out> - 2026-08-02 07:39 +0000
          Re: Resources to learn common lisp? steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-08-04 22:39 -0400
      Re: Resources to learn common lisp? steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-07-31 23:59 -0400
        Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-01 16:12 +0800
          Re: Resources to learn common lisp? steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-08-04 22:50 -0400
            Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-05 19:02 +0800
              Re: Resources to learn common lisp? steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 19:36 -0400
                Re: Resources to learn common lisp? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 02:11 +0800
                  Re: Resources to learn common lisp? steve g <Sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2026-08-09 18:49 -0400
                  Re: Resources to learn common lisp? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 13:08 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#401095

On 13/08/2026 10:18 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:16:25 +0200, bixbox wrote:
> 
>>> On the subject of Common Lisp, I find it more than disturbing when
>>> a codebase lacks the basic usage of hash tables.
>>>
>>>    https://www.sbcl.org/manual/#hash-table-extensions
>>
>> unless you find some code base that use hash table all over the place.
>> :)
> 
> Perl was a major advance on, I would say, two counts: it popularized
> regular expressions, and it popularized hash tables. Putting those two
> features together made for an extremely useful high-level language,
> which is what I think finally killed BASIC.

As always, Lawrence, you're mistaken about everything.  I believe it was
A.W.K. that popularized both regular expressions and hash tables.  Of
course, I'm now on a second thought about the has tables, but I'm abso-
lutely certain it was the A.W.K. programming language that popularized
the regular expressions, and that popularity is what drove people to
make Perl use basically the same syntax, a syntax that has also found
its way into Dtrace, which is a tool you've never used, because I don't
think the /Santa Cruz Operation/ ever put Dtrace into OpenServer.  You
can correct me about that, if I'm wrong.

In any case, a casual web search, which too often relies on L.L.M. summ-
aries these days, seems to indicate both G.N.U. and the /Invisible Is-
land/ m- A.W.K. have hash tables built-in.

So now you get to correct me, if and only if, the hash tables in Perl
are older than any implementation of A.W.K.  Good luck!

Now, on the subject of BASIC, I belive it was universities choosing
Wirth's Pascal as a first programming language in their curriculum
that killed B.A.S.I.C.  Do you disagree with that?

Then of course, Borland Pascal with the Pascal edition of Turbo Vision
which is unrelated to /dark vision/ among magical creatures in fantasy
literature, became extremely popular, and only managed to get replaced
by the Herculean efforts of Stroustrup's C++.


Or we'd all be coding our massively multiplayer online video games in
a dialect of Delphi!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401159

On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 02:18:14 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:16:25 +0200, bixbox wrote:
> 
> >> On the subject of Common Lisp, I find it more than disturbing when
> >> a codebase lacks the basic usage of hash tables.
> >>
> >>   https://www.sbcl.org/manual/#hash-table-extensions  
> >
> > unless you find some code base that use hash table all over the
> > place. :)  
> 
> Perl was a major advance on, I would say, two counts: it popularized
> regular expressions, and it popularized hash tables. Putting those two
> features together made for an extremely useful high-level language,
> which is what I think finally killed BASIC.

I would not call popularizing regular expression an advance.
IMHO, their popularity is rather unfortunate fact of computing life.
They are major attractor of mistakes and major source of surprize.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401161

On 2026-08-14 14:30, Michael S wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 02:18:14 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:16:25 +0200, bixbox wrote:
>>
>>>> On the subject of Common Lisp, I find it more than disturbing when
>>>> a codebase lacks the basic usage of hash tables.
>>>>
>>>>    https://www.sbcl.org/manual/#hash-table-extensions
>>>
>>> unless you find some code base that use hash table all over the
>>> place. :)
>>
>> Perl was a major advance on, I would say, two counts: it popularized
>> regular expressions, and it popularized hash tables. Putting those two
>> features together made for an extremely useful high-level language,
>> which is what I think finally killed BASIC.
> 
> I would not call popularizing regular expression an advance.

Thanks for your opinion.

> IMHO, their popularity is rather unfortunate fact of computing life.
> They are major attractor of mistakes and major source of surprize.

Yes mistakes can happen everywhere, even when writing of posts
("surprize"). :-)  And surprises appear where ignorance rules.

Regexps, OTOH, while appearing cryptic to the uninitiated, allow
in a compact way powerful search and match expression. Emulating
them by code is IME much more error-prone, though. They actually
help to reduce programming errors; this is my experience. (YMMV.)

Personally I used and appreciated them from the beginning. And
whenever I came in system contexts where they were not available
(back then typically in MS contexts) I cursed these systems for
their outdated primitive concepts that just made ones live hard.

You may be too old to learn or master them now but for the younger
folks around I strongly suggest to learn the concept of Regular
Expressions and identify where they can advantageously be used. It
certainly pays!

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401162

On 14/08/2026 16:45, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-08-14 14:30, Michael S wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 02:18:14 -0000 (UTC)
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:16:25 +0200, bixbox wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On the subject of Common Lisp, I find it more than disturbing when
>>>>> a codebase lacks the basic usage of hash tables.
>>>>>
>>>>>    https://www.sbcl.org/manual/#hash-table-extensions
>>>>
>>>> unless you find some code base that use hash table all over the
>>>> place. :)
>>>
>>> Perl was a major advance on, I would say, two counts: it popularized
>>> regular expressions, and it popularized hash tables. Putting those two
>>> features together made for an extremely useful high-level language,
>>> which is what I think finally killed BASIC.
>>
>> I would not call popularizing regular expression an advance.
> 
> Thanks for your opinion.
> 
>> IMHO, their popularity is rather unfortunate fact of computing life.
>> They are major attractor of mistakes and major source of surprize.
> 
> Yes mistakes can happen everywhere, even when writing of posts
> ("surprize"). :-)  And surprises appear where ignorance rules.
> 
> Regexps, OTOH, while appearing cryptic to the uninitiated, allow
> in a compact way powerful search and match expression. Emulating
> them by code is IME much more error-prone, though. They actually
> help to reduce programming errors; this is my experience. (YMMV.)
> 
> Personally I used and appreciated them from the beginning. And
> whenever I came in system contexts where they were not available
> (back then typically in MS contexts) I cursed these systems for
> their outdated primitive concepts that just made ones live hard.
> 
> You may be too old to learn or master them now but for the younger
> folks around I strongly suggest to learn the concept of Regular
> Expressions and identify where they can advantageously be used. It
> certainly pays!
> 
> Janis
> 

While I think it is reasonable to learn the ideas of regular 
expressions, and a little of the simplest and most common types, I don't 
think it is practical for anyone to learn to "master" regexs.  For one 
thing, there are a dozen different variations.  And while a lot of 
people find them useful on occasion, few need them regularly enough to 
be confident in writing them (or reading them, which can often be harder).

Fortunately, there is no good reason for mastering them unless you 
really do have a lot of use of them.  There are countless online 
"generator" sites for them, as well as for testing them or interpreting 
existing ones (when you are faced with the "fun" of debugging someone 
else's regex).

Like most things, they can be a useful tool, but some people get overly 
smart about them and produce monstrosities that no one understands and 
are impossible to debug or maintain.  Keep them reasonable, and they are 
fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401163

On 2026-08-14 17:15, David Brown wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> While I think it is reasonable to learn the ideas of regular 
> expressions, and a little of the simplest and most common types, I don't 
> think it is practical for anyone to learn to "master" regexs. 

Mastering them comes from alone once you make an informed start
(and not pause in stasis).

(To me it appears like mathematics in real life; the majority of
folks in my country regularly says things like "it's confusing",
"it's complicated", "we don't expect that understand that (as I
don't)", "it's normal that one cannot understand that", "math is
just difficult", and so on. Children get systematically repelled
to listening and learning maths, they quit at the first obstacle
they encounter. - I'm recognizing the same discussion mechanics
in our IT domain with Regexps. - Here in this thread that they'd
"attract mistakes".)

As with many things we start with "the simplest and most common
types" (as you formulated it). But there's no reason to stop if
you want to get more productive.

(Reminds me how some folks using the Vi editor; and completely
missing the power it evolves when getting past 'i' and 'Esc'.
If you are modest and feel comfortable with that it's okay, as
it's okay if you use only primitive elements of Regexps. But if
you use it for editing power you should continue learn not only
the concept but also the non-trivialities, and you'll observe
that your skill will not get twice as fast but magnitudes. That
is not much different from other areas; including Regexps.)

> For one thing, there are a dozen different variations.

This is true; certainly for different applications. But so what?
Are you saying that you have no problems switching to other tools
but the differences between the advanced regexp implementations
is an issue? If that is so for you, fair enough.

(BTW, for me it's at most only half a dozen that I occasionally
use.)

But at least we have a couple _common classes_ to distinguish.
POSIX standardized BRE and ERE or the pleasing PCRE (from Perl),
are the historically widely spread ones.

I observe that especially the basics (that you focused on above)
are widely the same. The details and differences come when you get
into it; in one tool the + meta-symbol isn't supported at all, in
another it needs an escape \+ . - Yes, that's what mastering may
mean, to know that. But you can also just try, in case you didn't
want to read the manual first. - Myself, in case of doubt, I just
try it, and I test my regexps, as I test my other program code.

> And while a lot of 
> people find them useful on occasion, few need them regularly enough to 
> be confident in writing them (or reading them, which can often be harder).

Well, I cannot speak for "lot of people"; I can speak for myself,
friends with IT (or CS) background, and the people from the areas
I worked in during the past decades. - Where Regexps were sensible
to use those people just used them.

I mentioned in my previous post already that they may be "appearing
cryptic to the uninitiated". So I'd like to emphasize again that at
least some engagement is necessary to learn them. Otherwise you're
completely lost of course.

(Imagining a similar uninformed approach to some uninitiated "C"
programmers; and things like *p--, or C's declaration syntax.
"Here are a set of symbols, now go compose your C-programs!".
The Regexps are compared to the C-language like a piece of cake!)

At some (early point) of learning writing them is okay but reading
third-party Regexps may be a problem; in complex cases. - That is
correct. But no one prevents you from *commenting* complex Regexps
where they appear (as you should comment complex code). In case of
undocumented code decomposition helps; this method is as well not
restricted to Regexps. And some tools that support Regexps allow
composing them (like a BNF specification; very readable, been there
done that).

(If I imagine the bulk of code I'd have to write to replace a Regexp
I'm shuddering, and I'm pity for those who have been repelled from
learning them by the spread commonplace myths and FUD.)

> 
> Fortunately, there is no good reason for mastering them unless you 
> really do have a lot of use of them. 

It's a personal choice whether you want to master them or just know
the concepts deeply enough to judge its application value. (Or if
you decide to abstain in advance, because they "attract mistakes"
or are "too difficult", or there are "too many subtle differences"
to even start using them.)

Yes. If you have no reason to use them you not only have no need to
master them but also not use them in the first place. - It's just a
pity if one cannot recognize where their applications would benefit.

> There are countless online 
> "generator" sites for them, as well as for testing them or interpreting 
> existing ones (when you are faced with the "fun" of debugging someone 
> else's regex).

Well, this I consider a counterproductive statement, but certainly
in the company of other "don't learn them" statements quoted above.

In this vein let me add to let an AI formulate (and analyze) your
Regexps. </sarcasm>

> 
> Like most things, they can be a useful tool, but some people get overly 
> smart about them and produce monstrosities that no one understands and 
> are impossible to debug or maintain.  Keep them reasonable, and they are 
> fine.

I've seen monstrosities of Regexps as I've seen monstrosities of "C"
(or other) code. The problem there were always the programmers, not
"C", not Regexps.

What are the alternatives to Regexps (or Regexp-monstrosities)?

If you can answer that question the "problems" vanish into thin air.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401166

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> While I think it is reasonable to learn the ideas of regular
> expressions, and a little of the simplest and most common types, I
> don't think it is practical for anyone to learn to "master" regexs.
> For one thing, there are a dozen different variations.  And while a
> lot of people find them useful on occasion, few need them regularly
> enough to be confident in writing them (or reading them, which can
> often be harder).
[...]

My own experience is very different.  I won't comment further, since
this is not about C.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400676

On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:21:51 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:

> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>
>> The tragedy is not using Common Lisp for everything.
>
> I loved this bit and I have a feeling you're correct.

What a dumb idea. Common Lisp is full of legacy baggage to cater to
proprietary pre-POSIX OSes which are now extinct.

Python can offer basic facilities like these in its standard library:
<https://docs.python.org/3/library/subprocess.html>
<https://docs.python.org/3/library/select.html>; where are the Common
Lisp equivalents?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400677

On 01/08/2026 6:46 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:21:51 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:
> 
>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> The tragedy is not using Common Lisp for everything.
>>
>> I loved this bit and I have a feeling you're correct.
> 
> What a dumb idea. Common Lisp is full of legacy baggage to cater to
> proprietary pre-POSIX OSes which are now extinct.

As always, you start off by mouthing your own ignorance.

* OpenVMS is both sold and ported to the x86.  https://vmssoftware.com/

* OS/2 is being sold and supported, under a new brand name.
   https://www.arcanoae.com/

* MenuetOS is written in assembly language, so I replaced
   comp.lang.python with comp.lang.asm.  https://www.menuetos.net/

> 
> Python can offer basic facilities like these in its standard library:
> <https://docs.python.org/3/library/subprocess.html>
> <https://docs.python.org/3/library/select.html>; where are the Common
> Lisp equivalents?

You mean this?  https://www.sbcl.org/manual/#running-external-programs
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400837

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:

> On 01/08/2026 6:46 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:21:51 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:
>> 
>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> The tragedy is not using Common Lisp for everything.
>>>
>>> I loved this bit and I have a feeling you're correct.
>> What a dumb idea. Common Lisp is full of legacy baggage to cater to
>> proprietary pre-POSIX OSes which are now extinct.
>
> As always, you start off by mouthing your own ignorance.
>
> * OpenVMS is both sold and ported to the x86.  https://vmssoftware.com/

I am actually glad to heear this! the women of the 70's loved these
things :)


> * OS/2 is being sold and supported, under a new brand name.
>   https://www.arcanoae.com/

not the best solution in the world but it did/does work.
I still think that PC-DOS was worth it's weight. Automatic IRQ, DMA,
HIGHMEM managment all automated. Wow!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400689

It is 2042.  A dry wind blows over a desolate landscape, raising flurries
of dust from the burnt ground.  Feral dogs, tumours proliferating on their
skin, pick through the debris, raking through yellow bones in the hope of
rats.  In the distance the remains of a city, a city whose name will soon
be remembered by nobody.  Some of the buildings appear curiously melted.

A structure made of corrugated iron, rusting, deformed panels torn from
some vehicle, and papier mâché.  A turbine atop a tower made partly of
garden furniture, creaking in the wind.  A collection of car batteries.

In the shed a thin figure crouches: ragged clothes and open sores.  He
types at a keyboard, poking a stick into the switches of the missing keys. 
The screen is cracked and dim.

The camera's eye moves, we can see, barely, the text on the screen.

> PYTHON IS THE ONLY TRUE SOLUTION PYTHON HAS BEEN THE BEST THE ONLY
> LANGUAGE FOR CENTURIES REFERENCE COUNTING WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
> BODILY FLUIDS GARBAGE COLLECTION IS THE WORK OF SATAN PYTHON IS THE
> STANDARD REFERENCE COUNTING MAKES THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN
> GARBAGE COLLECTORS ARE CONTINUALLY TRAWLING THROUGH DEAD DATA LISP IS
> OBSOLETE EVIL NOBODY USES LISP USE PYTHON LIKE ME USE PYTHON REFERENCE
> PYTHON LISP SLOW FAST PYTHON BEST YES PYTHON GARBAGE BAD PYTHON OBSOLETE

Flecks of foam and blood land on the keyboard.  No birds sing; what once
was grass is now dust and ash.

Still he types, faster and faster now, singing and chanting.

From the computer in the shack a cable runs.  The camera follows it, to its
end: copper cores poking through charred insulation.

Fade.

-- 
tfeb.org/computer/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400693

On Sat, 8/1/2026 5:08 AM, tfb wrote:
> It is 2042.
> 
> Fade.

The land may be parched, but the surface is populated
by shiny machines filled with the pretense of AI inside.

When I asked an LLM-AI to draw me a picture of something,
it said "here is your Python Card, execute this and your
picture will appear". As usual, some cosmetic changes were
required to the Card, but the code did run and meet the objective.
I do not recollect asking for a Python Card, I asked
for a picture. As an ordinary end-user, I was expected to know
what Python was ("the one true language") :-) The LLM-AI
didn't even say "Do you know what Python is ?" . It just
said "here is your Python Card", like everyone knows what
that is.

You see, the LLM-AI had decided what the chosen language is,
and it happens to be Python :-) Insert cackling laughter.

*******

I just asked it explicitly now, and it really IS hilarious.

   "If you are given a programming task to do, and the
    programming language is not specified, what language
    do you choose for the task and why do you choose
    that particular language ?
   "

CoPilot Answer:

If the task doesn’t specify a programming language, the smartest choice
is the language that gives you the fastest, clearest, least-painful path
to a correct solution. For most general, unspecified tasks, that tends
to be Python - and here’s why.

🧠 Short answer

I choose Python, because it minimizes friction: fast to write, easy to read,
huge standard library, and excellent for everything from quick scripts to
complex algorithms.
...

So there you have it, it wasn't an "accident" after all.
It really does mean it, when it hands out Python Cards
like they were candy.   Yikes!   Looks like the language
wars are over.

My resume in the year 2042:

   Languages:  Python
               (And when I have to, English)

*******

Well, that was only a leg-pull. Here is another paragraph of that slop,
to provide some balance.

🧠 When I wouldn’t choose Python
If the task hints at certain domains, I pivot:

High‑performance numeric computing → C++ or Rust

Systems programming / OS‑level tasks → C or Rust

Web front‑end → JavaScript/TypeScript

Enterprise backend → Java or C#

Embedded / microcontrollers → C

Functional programming or concurrency-heavy tasks → Haskell, Elixir, or Rust

But if the prompt gives no domain clues, Python is the most rational starting point.

*******

You Rust programmers, your job is safe for now.

And Rust never sleeps.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400698

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 07:49:41 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Well, that was only a leg-pull. Here is another paragraph of that
> slop, to provide some balance.
>
> Enterprise backend → Java or C#

This
<https://www.infoworld.com/article/4091447/spring-ai-tutorial-get-started-with-spring-ai.html>
is supposed to be an example of how you do AI programming in Java.

Is anybody still mystified why normal people would rather use Python
instead?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400699

On 8/1/2026 4:37 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 07:49:41 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> Well, that was only a leg-pull. Here is another paragraph of that
>> slop, to provide some balance.
>>
>> Enterprise backend → Java or C#
> 
> This
> <https://www.infoworld.com/article/4091447/spring-ai-tutorial-get-started-with-spring-ai.html>
> is supposed to be an example of how you do AI programming in Java.
> 
> Is anybody still mystified why normal people would rather use Python
> instead?

Yeah. I see normal people that use python all the time in the store... 
Give me a break!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400705

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> [... Python, Rust ...]

Woosh.

-- 
tfeb.org/computer/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400839

tfb <tfb@work.it.out> writes:

>
> Flecks of foam and blood land on the keyboard.  No birds sing; what once
> was grass is now dust and ash.
>
> Still he types, faster and faster now, singing and chanting.
>
> From the computer in the shack a cable runs.  The camera follows it, to its
> end: copper cores poking through charred insulation.
>
> Fade.


you are quite the poet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400683

Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:

> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Sadly we've also ended up with programmers who think the machines
>>>> they program for are giant PDP-11s, and as a result machines which
>>>> spend a huge amount of effort pretending to be giant PDP-11s.
>>>>
>>>> It's all a tragedy.
>>
>> The tragedy is not using Common Lisp for everything.
>
> I loved this bit and I have a feeling you're correct.  My little
> experience with Common Lisp is that it allows me to write the equivalent
> fast code that I'd write in C, where speed matters.  In other words, I
> seem to gain nothing (other than more work) by writing typical
> applications in C.


Wait until you read LISP:Lisp In Small Pieces. it's published in france.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400685

On 01/08/2026 11:59 AM, steve g wrote:
> Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:
> 
>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Sadly we've also ended up with programmers who think the machines
>>>>> they program for are giant PDP-11s, and as a result machines which
>>>>> spend a huge amount of effort pretending to be giant PDP-11s.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all a tragedy.
>>>
>>> The tragedy is not using Common Lisp for everything.
>>
>> I loved this bit and I have a feeling you're correct.  My little
>> experience with Common Lisp is that it allows me to write the equivalent
>> fast code that I'd write in C, where speed matters.  In other words, I
>> seem to gain nothing (other than more work) by writing typical
>> applications in C.
> 
> 
> Wait until you read LISP:Lisp In Small Pieces. it's published in france.
> 
> 
> 

I read the French edition.  /Principes d'Implantation de Scheme et
Lisp/, and it's now available as ebook on Amazon.  I recommend it,
it's a really fun book.  I believe it's the /second edition/, and
may have a little bit different content than the English one, which
I haven't read.

Do you read French?

-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400840

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:

> On 01/08/2026 11:59 AM, steve g wrote:
>> Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:
>> 
>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> Sadly we've also ended up with programmers who think the machines
>>>>>> they program for are giant PDP-11s, and as a result machines which
>>>>>> spend a huge amount of effort pretending to be giant PDP-11s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's all a tragedy.
>>>>
>>>> The tragedy is not using Common Lisp for everything.
>>>
>>> I loved this bit and I have a feeling you're correct.  My little
>>> experience with Common Lisp is that it allows me to write the equivalent
>>> fast code that I'd write in C, where speed matters.  In other words, I
>>> seem to gain nothing (other than more work) by writing typical
>>> applications in C.
>> Wait until you read LISP:Lisp In Small Pieces. it's published in france.
>> 
>
> I read the French edition.  /Principes d'Implantation de Scheme et
> Lisp/, and it's now available as ebook on Amazon.  I recommend it,
> it's a really fun book.  I believe it's the /second edition/, and
> may have a little bit different content than the English one, which
> I haven't read.
>
> Do you read French?

No I do not read french; just the algorithms. It is a fantastic book. I
can also apparently read german algorithms but the comments and the
docstrings can be difficult.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400858

On 05/08/2026 10:50 AM, steve g wrote:
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On 01/08/2026 11:59 AM, steve g wrote:
>>> Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Sadly we've also ended up with programmers who think the machines
>>>>>>> they program for are giant PDP-11s, and as a result machines which
>>>>>>> spend a huge amount of effort pretending to be giant PDP-11s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's all a tragedy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tragedy is not using Common Lisp for everything.
>>>>
>>>> I loved this bit and I have a feeling you're correct.  My little
>>>> experience with Common Lisp is that it allows me to write the equivalent
>>>> fast code that I'd write in C, where speed matters.  In other words, I
>>>> seem to gain nothing (other than more work) by writing typical
>>>> applications in C.
>>> Wait until you read LISP:Lisp In Small Pieces. it's published in france.
>>>
>>
>> I read the French edition.  /Principes d'Implantation de Scheme et
>> Lisp/, and it's now available as ebook on Amazon.  I recommend it,
>> it's a really fun book.  I believe it's the /second edition/, and
>> may have a little bit different content than the English one, which
>> I haven't read.
>>
>> Do you read French?
> 
> No I do not read french; just the algorithms. It is a fantastic book. I
> can also apparently read german algorithms but the comments and the
> docstrings can be difficult.

That's good.  If you want to brush up on your German, this course looks
solid,

  
https://shop.thegreatcourses.com/learning-german-a-journey-through-language-and-culture

and I've been meaning to take it.  Note that if you buy it now online,
you only get it streaming, so if you want to download it, you can look
for a DVD copy on Ebay.

I haven't checked if it's available on the binary discussion groups of
Usenet.

Now is there some particular book you feel is worth my time in German?
For either studying some C or Lisp arcana?  Preferably not some basics,
as those are already covered in English.
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400903

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:


> Now is there some particular book you feel is worth my time in German?
> For either studying some C or Lisp arcana?  Preferably not some basics,
> as those are already covered in English.

my answer would be using ITU (international morse code) and looking at
American (or military) CW (continious wave). Many people claim they have
learned both from just listening to it on the radio.

Unfortunately radio is all but dead. This is a good thing; less "traffic
police".

As to english books I do have an excellent book one of my teachers gave
me. it contains all the funky rules of american enhlish. I am not at
"home" right now so I look it up and I can't remeber the name. She said
just read and re-scim this book before writing papers in college. This
is bothering me now...

I personally think that you need to practice the language to understand
it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web