Re: [feyerabend-project] modernism/postmodernism, was Re: CL and modernism
- On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> We can change "the world" either by telling people "the...
> truth", or essentially by playing the same game. These are two different
> What do the others think? Who of you is for or against telling the truthI think "telling the truth" doesn't work. I can't think of a single
> and/or playing the same game?
example where "the truth" has prevailed over good marketing. Having some
truth on your side makes the marketing job easier, but it isn't necessary,
and it certainly isn't sufficient.
> P.S.: Yes, I think this is a valid Feyerabend topic...I agree.
>> I like to think of ZetaLisp, CL andSmalltalk as representing a
bare-maximums that work to make me
productive in building interesting
systems. I find those bare-minimum
languages to be like living in a
tent, something that can be fun for a day
or two but not a serious
place to live. I find
that working with a collection of little
languages and tools is
somewhat like living in a tent city. <<
I think this is why Scheme in a JVM works
so well for me. The JVM enables a very
feature rich environment and Scheme enables
a very powerful way to access the
environment. This feels "bare maximum" in
the sense that a Lisp machine used to feel
that way, plus it grows with every useful
Java class I find on the net. Kind of a
dessert topping *and* a floor wax.
- Patrick Logan wrote:
> >> I like to think of ZetaLisp, CL andPatrick wrote:
> Smalltalk as representing a
> bare-maximums that work to make me
> productive in building interesting
> or complex
> systems. I find those bare-minimum
> languages to be like living in a
> tent, something that can be fun for a day
> or two but not a serious
> place to live. I find
> that working with a collection of little
> languages and tools is
> somewhat like living in a tent city. <<
Yep, sometime the tent just comes down in the middle
of a storm.
I recently gave up the prescriptive Java/XML
implementation of a WFMC (workflow management coalition)
compliant workflow management system (because of
language and paradigm limitations), and turned the
workflow system into a declarative CLIPS implementation
using Jess. (Our goal is to eventually provide the
implementation in SweetJess, Jess's XML cousin that uses
DAML+OIL and Rule ML so that we can program in "XML" and
satisfy what corporate America wants to hear:
"It is in Java and in XML"
we'll give them SweetJess :-) which is of course a
logical-functional Trojan horse.
Our code in Jess is about 1/5 of what it used to be and
I can do things that are nearly impossible using
the prescriptive and XML forms.
Did I mention that it is also mobile, concurrent safe,
and changeable at runtime (dynamic rules, functions, facts
created on the fly)?
The next release of Jess will add Lisp-like macros ....
Btw, does anyone know of a native CLIPS implementation in
Lisp? (Currently I added a PROLOG library to my lisp but
it doesn't quite feel like CLIPS.)
Patrick Logan wrote:
> I think this is why Scheme in a JVM worksScheme is definitely a good place to be. In my case
> so well for me. The JVM enables a very
> feature rich environment and Scheme enables
> a very powerful way to access the
> environment. This feels "bare maximum" in
> the sense that a Lisp machine used to feel
> that way, plus it grows with every useful
> Java class I find on the net. Kind of a
> dessert topping *and* a floor wax.
I needed features that were more akin to Curry (the
logical Haskell cousin). In fact, in the future
we are considering using the Xurry virtual machine (a logical-functional
virtual machine that sits on top of Java).
Some rough estimates indicate that our Xurry code will
be between 1/5 and 1/10 of what our original wfmc
prescriptive code used to look like,