Category D: Published Publications on Lisp/Common Lisp (Duplication

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Category D: Published Publications on Lisp/Common Lisp (duplication checked) Category D-1) Lisp and Common Lisp Books ANSI Common Lisp Paul Graham Prentice Hall 1996 A Programmer’s Guide to Common Lisp Deborah G.Tatar Digital Press 1987 Common Lisp The Reference Franz Inc. Addison-Wesley 1988 Common Lisp Guy L.Steele Jr. (in Japanese) Tr. by Eiichi Goto and Masayuki Ida Kyoritsu Pub. 1984 Common Lisp Second Edition Guy L.Steele Jr. (in Japanese) Tr.by Masayuki Ida, Kyoritsu Pub. 1990 Lisp 3rd Edition Patrick Henry Winston/Berthold Klaus Paul Horn Addison-Wesley 1989 Lisp Patrick Henry Winston/Berthold Klaus Paul Horn (in Japanese) Baihuukan1982 Lisp(1) Third Edition Patrick Henry Winston/Berthold Klaus Paul Horn(in Japanese) Baihuukan1991 Lisp(2) Third Edition Patrick Henry Winston/Berthold Klaus Paul Horn(in Japanese) Baihuukan1991 Lisp Style & Design Molly M.Miller/Eric Benson Digital Press 1990 The Common Lisp Companion Timothy D.Koschmann John Wiley & Sons 1990 The Little LISPer Trade Edition Daniel P.Friedman/Matthias Felleisen MIT Press 1987 The T Programming Language-A Dialect of Lisp- Stephen Slade Prentice Hall 1987 Common Lisp Interface Manager, Release 1 Specification, December 12, 1990 Category D-2) Related Languages and Documents BCPL – the language and its compiler, by M. Richards and C Whitby-Strevens, Cambridge U Press, 1980 B Reference Manual, U Waterloo, 1977 Scheme: Past, Present and Future, by Guy Steele and Masayuki Ida, CSRL Technical Report 95-009, Aoyama Gakuin University, 1995 Programming Languages, ed.by F. Genuys, NATO advanced study institute, Academic Press, 1968 (including “Co-operating Sequential Processes” by E.W.Dijkstra and others) Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence, by J. McCarthy and P.J. Hayes, Machine Intelligence 4, pp463-502, Edinburgh University Press, 1969 Some Problems in the Epistemology of Artificial Intelligence, J. McCarthy, special talk handwritten manuscript at Kyoto U, May 29, 1975 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

How to Design Co-Programs
JFP, 15 pages, 2021. c Cambridge University Press 2021 1 doi:10.1017/xxxxx EDUCATIONMATTERS How to Design Co-Programs JEREMY GIBBONS Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford e-mail: [email protected] Abstract The observation that program structure follows data structure is a key lesson in introductory pro- gramming: good hints for possible program designs can be found by considering the structure of the data concerned. In particular, this lesson is a core message of the inﬂuential textbook “How to Design Programs” by Felleisen, Findler, Flatt, and Krishnamurthi. However, that book discusses using only the structure of input data for guiding program design, typically leading towards structurally recur- sive programs. We argue that novice programmers should also be taught to consider the structure of output data, leading them also towards structurally corecursive programs. 1 Introduction Where do programs come from? This mystery can be an obstacle to novice programmers, who can become overwhelmed by the design choices presented by a blank sheet of paper, or an empty editor window— where does one start? A good place to start, we tell them, is by analyzing the structure of the data that the program is to consume. For example, if the program h is to process a list of values, one may start by analyzing the structure of that list. Either the list is empty ([]), or it is non-empty (a : x) with a head (a) and a tail (x). This provides a candidate program structure: h [ ] = ::: h (a : x) = ::: a ::: x ::: where for the empty list some result must simply be chosen, and for a non-empty list the result depends on the head a and tail x.
[Show full text]
The Evolution of Lisp
1 The Evolution of Lisp Guy L. Steele Jr. Richard P. Gabriel Thinking Machines Corporation Lucid, Inc. 245 First Street 707 Laurel Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 Menlo Park, California 94025 Phone: (617) 234-2860 Phone: (415) 329-8400 FAX: (617) 243-4444 FAX: (415) 329-8480 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Lisp is the world’s greatest programming language—or so its proponents think. The structure of Lisp makes it easy to extend the language or even to implement entirely new dialects without starting from scratch. Overall, the evolution of Lisp has been guided more by institutional rivalry, one-upsmanship, and the glee born of technical cleverness that is characteristic of the “hacker culture” than by sober assessments of technical requirements. Nevertheless this process has eventually produced both an industrial- strength programming language, messy but powerful, and a technically pure dialect, small but powerful, that is suitable for use by programming-language theoreticians. We pick up where McCarthy’s paper in the first HOPL conference left off. We trace the development chronologically from the era of the PDP-6, through the heyday of Interlisp and MacLisp, past the ascension and decline of special purpose Lisp machines, to the present era of standardization activities. We then examine the technical evolution of a few representative language features, including both some notable successes and some notable failures, that illuminate design issues that distinguish Lisp from other programming languages. We also discuss the use of Lisp as a laboratory for designing other programming languages. We conclude with some reflections on the forces that have driven the evolution of Lisp.
[Show full text]
Final Shift for Call/Cc: Direct Implementation of Shift and Reset
Final Shift for Call/cc: Direct Implementation of Shift and Reset Martin Gasbichler Michael Sperber Universitat¨ Tubingen¨ fgasbichl,[email protected] Abstract JxKρ = λk:(k (ρ x)) 0 0 We present a direct implementation of the shift and reset con- Jλx:MKρ = λk:k (λv:λk :(JMK)(ρ[x 7! v]) k ) trol operators in the Scheme 48 system. The new implementation JE1 E2Kρ = λk:JE1Kρ (λ f :JE2Kρ (λa: f a k) improves upon the traditional technique of simulating shift and reset via call/cc. Typical applications of these operators exhibit Figure 1. Continuation semantics space savings and a significant overall performance gain. Our tech- nique is based upon the popular incremental stack/heap strategy for representing continuations. We present implementation details as well as some benchmark measurements for typical applications. this transformation has a direct counterpart as a semantic specifica- tion of the λ calculus; Figure 1 shows such a semantic specification for the bare λ calculus: each ρ is an environment mapping variables Categories and Subject Descriptors to values, and each k is a continuation—a function from values to values. An abstraction denotes a function from an environment to a D.3.3 [Programming Languages]: Language Constructs and Fea- function accepting an argument and a continuation. tures—Control structures In the context of the semantics, the rule for call/cc is this: General Terms Jcall=cc EKρ = λk:JEKρ (λ f : f (λv:λk0:k v) k) Languages, Performance Call=cc E evaluates E and calls the result f ; it then applies f to an Keywords escape function which discards the continuation k0 passed to it and replaces it by the continuation k of the call=cc expression.
[Show full text]
Knowledge Based Engineering: Between AI and CAD
Advanced Engineering Informatics 26 (2012) 159–179 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Advanced Engineering Informatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aei Knowledge based engineering: Between AI and CAD. Review of a language based technology to support engineering design ⇑ Gianfranco La Rocca Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Chair of Flight Performance and Propulsion, Kluyverweg 1, 2629HS Delft, The Netherlands article info abstract Article history: Knowledge based engineering (KBE) is a relatively young technology with an enormous potential for Available online 16 March 2012 engineering design applications. Unfortunately the amount of dedicated literature available to date is quite low and dispersed. This has not promoted the diffusion of KBE in the world of industry and acade- Keywords: mia, neither has it contributed to enhancing the level of understanding of its technological fundamentals. Knowledge based engineering The scope of this paper is to offer a broad technological review of KBE in the attempt to fill the current Knowledge engineering information gap. The artificial intelligence roots of KBE are briefly discussed and the main differences and Engineering design similarities with respect to classical knowledge based systems and modern general purpose CAD systems Generative design highlighted. The programming approach, which is a distinctive aspect of state-of-the-art KBE systems, is Knowledge based design Rule based design discussed in detail, to illustrate its effectiveness in capturing and re-using engineering knowledge to automate large portions of the design process. The evolution and trends of KBE systems are investigated and, to conclude, a list of recommendations and expectations for the KBE systems of the future is provided.
[Show full text]
Practical Ruby Projects: Practical Ruby Projects Ideas for the Eclectic Programmer
CYAN YELLOW MAGENTA BLACK PANTONE 123 C BOOKS FOR PROFESSIONALS BY PROFESSIONALS® THE EXPERT’S VOICE® IN OPEN SOURCE Companion eBook Available Practical Ruby Projects: Projects Ruby Practical Ideas for the Eclectic Programmer Dear Reader, You’ve learned the basics of Ruby, and you’re ready to move on to the next level— trying out advanced techniques, mastering best practices, and exploring Ruby’s full potential. With this book you’ll learn by experience while you tackle an exciting series of varied but always practical programming projects. What is an eclectic programmer, you ask? He or she is an inquisitive thinker Practical who likes to play around with new concepts, a person who is project-oriented and enjoys coding, a person who doesn’t mind some technical depth folded in with creative excursions, and a person who is always looking for fresh ideas. This book is a little different from other computer books. It is meant to be entertaining, exciting, and intellectually challenging. Inside you’ll find a collec- tion of diverse projects, ranging from the creative to the practical, written as a nod to all the great Rubyists I’ve been privileged to know. Each chapter dives into Ruby Projects new topics and approaches meant to exercise your programming muscles. You’ll start by building a cross-platform music environment, progress to drawing animations using scalable vector graphics, and then move on to prac- tical problem solving using simulation. In addition, you’ll implement your own turn-based strategy game and build a Mac-native RubyCocoa interface to it.
[Show full text]
Lisp: Final Thoughts
20 Lisp: Final Thoughts Both Lisp and Prolog are based on formal mathematical models of computation: Prolog on logic and theorem proving, Lisp on the theory of recursive functions. This sets these languages apart from more traditional languages whose architecture is just an abstraction across the architecture of the underlying computing (von Neumann) hardware. By deriving their syntax and semantics from mathematical notations, Lisp and Prolog inherit both expressive power and clarity. Although Prolog, the newer of the two languages, has remained close to its theoretical roots, Lisp has been extended until it is no longer a purely functional programming language. The primary culprit for this diaspora was the Lisp community itself. The pure lisp core of the language is primarily an assembly language for building more complex data structures and search algorithms. Thus it was natural that each group of researchers or developers would “assemble” the Lisp environment that best suited their needs. After several decades of this the various dialects of Lisp were basically incompatible. The 1980s saw the desire to replace these multiple dialects with a core Common Lisp, which also included an object system, CLOS. Common Lisp is the Lisp language used in Part III. But the primary power of Lisp is the fact, as pointed out many times in Part III, that the data and commands of this language have a uniform structure. This supports the building of what we call meta-interpreters, or similarly, the use of meta-linguistic abstraction. This, simply put, is the ability of the program designer to build interpreters within Lisp (or Prolog) to interpret other suitably designed structures in the language.
[Show full text]
A Lisp Oriented Architecture by John W.F
A Lisp Oriented Architecture by John W.F. McClain Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY September 1994 © John W.F. McClain, 1994 The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author ...... ;......................... .............. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science August 5th, 1994 Certified by....... ......... ... ...... Th nas F. Knight Jr. Principal Research Scientist 1,,IA £ . Thesis Supervisor Accepted by ....................... 3Frederic R. Morgenthaler Chairman, Depattee, on Graduate Students J 'FROM e ;; "N MfLIT oARIES ..- A Lisp Oriented Architecture by John W.F. McClain Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science on August 5th, 1994, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering Abstract In this thesis I describe LOOP, a new architecture for the efficient execution of pro- grams written in Lisp like languages. LOOP allows Lisp programs to run at high speed without sacrificing safety or ease of programming. LOOP is a 64 bit, long in- struction word architecture with support for generic arithmetic, 64 bit tagged IEEE floats, low cost fine grained read and write barriers, and fast traps. I make estimates for how much these Lisp specific features cost and how much they may speed up the execution of programs written in Lisp.
[Show full text]
ASDF 3, Or Why Lisp Is Now an Acceptable Scripting Language (Extended Version)
ASDF 3, or Why Lisp is Now an Acceptable Scripting Language (Extended version) François-René Rideau Google [email protected] Abstract libraries, or network services; one can scale them into large, main- ASDF, the de facto standard build system for Common Lisp, has tainable and modular systems; and one can make those new ser- been vastly improved between 2009 and 2014. These and other im- vices available to other programs via the command-line as well as provements finally bring Common Lisp up to par with "scripting via network protocols, etc. languages" in terms of ease of writing and deploying portable code The last barrier to making that possible was the lack of a that can access and "glue" together functionality from the underly- portable way to build and deploy code so a same script can run ing system or external programs. "Scripts" can thus be written in unmodified for many users on one or many machines using one or Common Lisp, and take advantage of its expressive power, well- many different compilers. This was solved by ASDF 3. defined semantics, and efficient implementations. We describe the ASDF has been the de facto standard build system for portable most salient improvements in ASDF and how they enable previ- CL software since shortly after its release by Dan Barlow in 2002 ously difficult and portably impossible uses of the programming (Barlow 2004). The purpose of a build system is to enable divi- language. We discuss past and future challenges in improving this sion of labor in software development: source code is organized key piece of software infrastructure, and what approaches did or in separately-developed components that depend on other compo- didn’t work in bringing change to the Common Lisp community.
[Show full text]
Commonloops Merging Lisp and Object-Oriented Programming Daniel G
CommonLoops Merging Lisp and Object-Oriented Programming Daniel G. Bobrow, Kenneth Kahn, Gregor Kiczales, Larry Masinter, Mark Stefik, and Frank Zdybel Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Palo Alto, California 94304 CommonLoops blends object-oriented programming Within the procedure-oriented paradigm, Lisp smoothly and tightly with the procedure-oriented provides an important approach for factoring design of Lisp. Functions and methods are combined programs that is'different from common practice in in a more general abstraction. Message passing is object-oriented programming. In this paper we inuoked via normal Lisp function call. Methods are present the linguistic mechanisms that we have viewed as partial descriptions of procedures. Lisp data developed for integrating these styles. We argue that types are integrated with object classes. With these the unification results in something greater than the integrations, it is easy to incrementally move a program sum of the parts, that is, that the mechanisms needed between the procedure and object -oriented styles. for integrating object-oriented and procedure-oriented approaches give CommonLoops surprising strength. One of the most important properties of CommonLoops is its extenswe use of meta-objects. We discuss three We describe a smooth integration of these ideas that kinds of meta-objects: objects for classes, objects for can work efficiently in Lisp systems implemented on a methods, and objects for discriminators. We argue that wide variety of machines. We chose the Common Lisp these meta-objects make practical both efficient dialect as a base on which to bui|d CommonLoops (a implementation and experimentation with new ideas Common Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System).
[Show full text]
The Racket Manifesto∗
The Racket Manifesto∗ Matthias Felleisen, Robert Bruce Findler, Matthew Flatt, Shriram Krishnamurthi Eli Barzilay, Jay McCarthy, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt Abstract The creation of a programming language calls for guiding principles that point the developers to goals. This article spells out the three basic principles behind the 20-year development of Racket. First, programming is about stating and solving problems, and this activity normally takes place in a context with its own language of discourse; good programmers ought to for- mulate this language as a programming language. Hence, Racket is a programming language for creating new programming languages. Second, by following this language-oriented approach to programming, systems become multi-lingual collections of interconnected components. Each language and component must be able to protect its specific invariants. In support, Racket offers protection mechanisms to implement a full language spectrum, from C-level bit manipulation to soundly typed extensions. Third, because Racket considers programming as problem solving in the correct language, Racket also turns extra-linguistic mechanisms into linguistic constructs, especially mechanisms for managing resources and projects. The paper explains these principles and how Racket lives up to them, presents the evaluation framework behind the design process, and concludes with a sketch of Racket’s imperfections and opportunities for future improvements. 1998 ACM Subject Classification D.3.3 Language Constructs and Features Keywords and phrases design
[Show full text]
Jon L. White Collection on Common Lisp
http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c89w0mkb No online items Jon L. White collection on Common Lisp Finding aid prepared by Bo Doub, Kim Hayden, and Sara Chabino Lott Processing of this collection was made possible through generous funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, administered through the Council on Library and Information Resources' Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives grant. Computer History Museum 1401 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA, 94043 (650) 810-1010 [email protected] March 2017 Jon L. White collection on X6823.2013 1 Common Lisp Title: Jon L. White collection Identifier/Call Number: X6823.2013 Contributing Institution: Computer History Museum Language of Material: English Physical Description: 8.75 Linear feet,7 record cartons Date (bulk): Bulk, 1978-1995 Date (inclusive): 1963-2012 Abstract: The Jon L. White collection on Common Lisp contains material relating to the development and standardization of the programming language Common Lisp and, more generally, the Lisp family of programming languages. Records date from 1963 to 2012, with the bulk of the material ranging from 1978 to 1995, when White was working at MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), Lucid, and Harlequin Group. Throughout many of these positions, White was serving on the X3J13 Committee to formalize a Common Lisp standard, which aimed to combine and standardize many previous dialects of Lisp. This collection consists of conference proceedings, manuals, X3J13 Committee correspondence and meeting minutes, notebooks, technical papers, and periodicals documenting White’s work in all of these roles. Other dialects of Lisp--especially MAClisp--are also major focuses of the collection.
[Show full text]
Some Non-Standard Issues on Lisp Standardization
Some Non-standard Issues on Lisp Standardization Takayasu IT0 * Taiichi YUASA Introduction Lisp was born about 25 years ago as an A1 language with a precise operational semantics. Since then many Lisp dialects have been proposed, implemented and used. In 1960's Lisp 1.5 was a kind of Lisp standard, although there were many Lisp 1.5 dialects which depend on 1/0 and computer systems. In 1970's various Lisp dialects were spawned to respond to the need of more powerful Lisp systems for A1 research and symbolic computation. Among them we know that Lisp 1.6, Interlisp and Maclisp had big influences in the development of Lisp; especially, Maclisp brought us various interesting successors, including Franzlisp, Scheme, Zet alisp and Common Lisp. Common Lisp [STEELE] may be taken as a result of standardization activities of Maclisp and its successors, and Scheme is one of the first steps to try to settle and resolve some syntactic and semantic incompatibilities in Maclisp families. Eulisp [PADGET] may be taken to be another attempt along with this line with greater ambition for Lisp standardization, employing the design philosophy of extensible languages based on "leveling of languages". Various design and standardization issues have been considered and examined in the course of designing Common Lisp and Eulisp. The current standardization activities in US and Europe are mainly placed on "clean-upn of Common Lisp and "refinement and development" of Eulisp, in addition to efforts of designing object-oriented features in Lisp systems. In a sense major (standard) issues in Lisp standardization have been considered in these efforts of clean-up of Common Lisp and design of Eulisp.
[Show full text]