boss. So, one way to look at Lisp is as a language designed to keep you in a state of flow.
4
This point is bound to be somewhat controversial, at least with some folks. Static versus dynamic typing is one of the classic religious wars in programming. If you're coming from C++ and Java (or from statically typed functional languages such as Haskel and ML) and refuse to consider living without static type checks, you might as well put this book down now. However, before you do, you might first want to check out what self-described 'statically typed bigot' Robert Martin (author of http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639 and http://www.mindview.net/ WebLog/log-0025). On the other hand, folks coming from Smalltalk, Python, Perl, or Ruby should feel right at home with this aspect of Common Lisp.
5
AspectL is an interesting project insofar as AspectJ, its Java-based predecessor, was written by Gregor Kiczales, one of the designers of Common Lisp's object and metaobject systems. To many Lispers, AspectJ seems like Kiczales's attempt to backport his ideas from Common Lisp into Java. However, Pascal Costanza, the author of AspectL, thinks there are interesting ideas in AOP that could be useful in Common Lisp. Of course, the reason he's able to implement AspectL as a library is because of the incredible flexibility of the Common Lisp Meta Object Protocol Kiczales designed. To implement AspectJ, Kiczales had to write what was essentially a separate compiler that compiles a new language into Java source code. The AspectL project page is at http://common- lisp.net/project/aspectl/.
6
Or to look at it another, more technically accurate, way, Common Lisp comes with a built-in facility for integrating compilers for embedded languages.
7
8
Ideas first introduced in Lisp include the if/then/else construct, recursive function calls, dynamic memory allocation, garbage collection, first-class functions, lexical closures, interactive programming, incremental compilation, and dynamic typing.
9
One of the most commonly repeated myths about Lisp is that it's 'dead.' While it's true that Common Lisp isn't as widely used as, say, Visual Basic or Java, it seems strange to describe a language that continues to be used for new development and that continues to attract new users as 'dead.' Some recent Lisp success stories include Paul Graham's Viaweb, which became Yahoo Store when Yahoo bought his company; ITA Software's airfare pricing and shopping system, QPX, used by the online ticket seller Orbitz and others; Naughty Dog's game for the PlayStation 2, Jak and Daxter, which is largely written in a domain-specific Lisp dialect Naughty Dog invented called GOAL, whose compiler is itself written in Common Lisp; and the Roomba, the autonomous robotic vacuum cleaner, whose software is written in L, a downwardly compatible subset of Common Lisp. Perhaps even more telling is the growth of the Common-Lisp.net Web site, which hosts open-source Common Lisp projects, and the number of local Lisp user groups that have sprung up in the past couple of years.
10
Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs
11
If you've had a bad experience with Emacs previously, you should treat Lisp in a Box as an IDE that happens to use an Emacs-like editor as its text editor; there will be no need to become an Emacs guru to program Lisp. It is, however, orders of magnitude more enjoyable to program Lisp with an editor that has some basic Lisp awareness. At a minimum, you'll want an editor that can automatically match ()s for you and knows how to automatically indent Lisp code. Because Emacs is itself largely written in a Lisp dialect, Elisp, it has quite a bit of support for editing Lisp code. Emacs is also deeply embedded into the history of Lisp and the culture of Lisp hackers: the original Emacs and its immediate predecessors, TECMACS and TMACS, were written by Lispers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The editors on the Lisp Machines were versions of Emacs written entirely in Lisp. The first two Lisp Machine Emacs, following the hacker tradition of recursive acronyms, were EINE and ZWEI, which stood for EINE Is Not Emacs and ZWEI Was EINE Initially. Later ones used a descendant of ZWEI, named, more prosaically, ZMACS.
12
Practically speaking, there's very little likelihood of the language standard itself being revised—while there are a small handful of warts that folks might like to clean up, the ANSI process isn't amenable to opening an existing standard for minor tweaks, and none of the warts that might be cleaned up actually cause anyone any serious difficulty. The future of Common Lisp standardization is likely to proceed via de facto standards, much like the 'standardization' of Perl and Python—as different implementers experiment with application programming interfaces (APIs) and libraries for doing things not specified in the language standard, other implementers may
