what to do after "Touretzkey's book"?

hello everyone,

I am a newbie who is trying his brain at "Touretzky's : Common-LISP a
gentle introduction". i am on chapter-6 and untill now it is marvelous.
I call it a great work of art for newbies to programming. I say so from
my experience with more than dozen of books on introduction to
programming and majority of them used SCHEME which i never liked, some
used PYTHON and much less used PERL, JAVA and C. anyway contrary to all
of the sayings i have heard over last 12 months (during my time here) i
think Common-LISP is a great introduction to programming when
accompained with "Touretzky".

---------------------
my *aim*: i want to start writing software or will join as a
*bug-fixer* in Common-LISP projects (will work with "copyleft"
softwares only). -- i want to start real-life software writing,
bug-fixing or something like it after 10 months.
------------------------
so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?

may you provide any of the online & offline resources on this?

please have a look at these 3 points:

1.) i tried "how to design programmes" (HtDP), "Learning to Programme"
by Alan Gauld . these 2 were very *hard* books, not in the technical
sense but because i have a very different *cognitive process* as
compared to majority of newbies. right now SICP is far above my head
but i found it to be extremely different from 2 books which draw its
ideas (they are HtDP and "Concrete Abstrations" ).

2.)PAIP by Peter Norvig is already onto my list. so i can buy only one
more.

3.)Do i need to know CLOS if i want to start with my *aim*? if yes,
then How about CLOS by Sonya Keene, OOP in Common LISP by Stephen
Slade. i do not know anything about them but have heard about them.

i will appreciate any type of help.

;;; oh! sorry, one more question:

i am also after powerfull aprogramming ideas like of SICP. do you think
i will get time to learn them, in these 10 months?

if yes, then besides SICP how about "Knuth's art of programming" and
"Introduction to algorithams by Cormen et al"?

thanks a million.

"arnuld"

IIRC Touretzky covers mostly functional-style programming with lots of 
emphasis on lists and stuff like that.

For more day-to-day programming, definitely take a look at 
 http://www.**--****.com/ 
especially before tackling "real" projects.


I think you can always read the above three books later.  But give 
Practical Common Lisp a try; it's online for free, or go buy the 
dead-tree version.

-- 
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...

"arnuld" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

     Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
enjoyed it.

Regards,

Patrick

------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc.    | The experts in large scale distributed OO
                         | systems design and implementation.
           XXXX@XXXXX.COM     | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)

Patrick May < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

That's an exceptionally {*filter*} advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might be
in for another un-COSy suprise ...

Mike

-- 
If you don't breathe, there is no air.          DI Michael Wildpaner
If you don't walk, there is no earth.                  Ph.D. Student
If you don't speak, there is no world.
    -- Navajo (Dineh) wisdom

Michael Wildpaner < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

     It wasn't intended to be {*filter*}.  I do hope that no one would take
it as anything other than a facetious suggestion.

Regards,

Patrick

------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc.    | The experts in large scale distributed OO
                         | systems design and implementation.
           XXXX@XXXXX.COM     | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)

+---------------
| my *aim*: i want to start writing software or will join as a
| *bug-fixer* in Common-LISP projects (will work with "copyleft"
| softwares only). ...
+---------------

Just so you know, many (most?) of the Common Lisp community are not
terribly great fans of "copyleft" [e.g., GPL], but rather prefer to
use -- and write -- open-source software with the less-coercive
BSD/MIT-style licenses (or even sometimes, in those countries
supporting such a legal status, "public domain"). There are many
reasons for this -- technical [due to Lisp's dynamic compiling,
loading, & REPL'ing nature], historical, social, & legal -- so I
thought I'd let you know about it before you bumped into the issue
by accident. You are, of course, completely free to use a GPL-style
license on code you write in Lisp if you wish; I just thought you
should be alerted that doing so might affect its acceptance. At the
very least, you should do a web search on the difference between
the LGPL and the LLGPL and consider using the latter (though some
still have concerns about even that).


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
627 26th Avenue			<URL: http://www.**--****.com/ ;
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607

> I just thought you

i have seen your name many times on C.L.L., well what i know that
nearly all of the hackers use LISP and:

1. majority of hackers created/helped a project named GNOME which is
GPLed.

2. nearly all of the hackers use LINUX which is GPLed.

3. nearlt all of the softwares/tools on LINUX are GPLed.

then what do you mean by the thing  "Common-LISP community" will not
accept my software if my software is GPLed.?

does it mean "common-LISP community" is not composed of any Hackers or
hackers @ C.L.L do not like GPL?

i do not think so.

waiting for your reply.........

--arnuld

Gnome is based on X which is not GPL.


Many hackers also use FreeBSD (for example) which is not GPL.


Apache is not GPL, Perl isn't, etc.  Not even the GNU C library which
is used by almost every C program on Linux is GPL, it's LGPL.


There was a time when "Lisp community" was more or less synonymous
with "hackers:"

  < http://www.**--****.com/ ;


That's clearly what Rob said (and he spoke for the perceived majority,
not for all of c.l.l.).  Have you actually read his posting?


That doesn't change it.


You didn't really address anything of what Rob said.  Did you check
the LLGPL for example?

-- 

European Common Lisp Meeting 2006: < http://www.**--****.com/ ;

Real email: (replace (subseq " XXXX@XXXXX.COM " 5) "edi")

I would like to clarify, as Stallman can't respond. I've discussed the
matter with him, and he's emphatically pro-capitalism. Both in public
and private correspondence. (In fact, it appears the GPL respects free
markets far more than modern copyright.)


Tayssir

Interesting!  I'll accept it, even though it's against my understanding 
of business and software.

I don't believe you can earn money with great software if it's open 
source, just because great software will install and run itself. 
There's no manual, no configuration, no consulting involved.  This is 
why I gladly paid for my Mac, and why I don't run NetBSD and Linux anymore.

RMS said that all software should be free, which I can only understand 
as that all programmers have to *somehow* be paid for writing new 
open-source stuff, or for services.

Of course the {*filter*} language C also has something to do with both 
open-source quality (usability, but also security holes etc.), and with 
the abundance of improvements that could be made and how much time 
they'd take. :)

-- 
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...

"arnuld" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


You were killed by Open Source?  And now you've come back?  So, what
you're saying is that you're a Free Software zombie.  Oh my god, are
we about to embark on a really nerdy version of From Dusk Til Dawn?!?!

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
     ,--'    _,'   | Abolish the racist    |
    /       /      | death penalty!        |
   (   -.  |       `-----------------------'
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'                               

"arnuld" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

Hey pal!  We are programmers! 
We don't _need_ Open Source, we can rewrite it ourself if we want!

What we need, to avoid to rewrite everything from scratch everytime,
is _Free_ software, and _Free_ hardware (ie. hardware with full
documentation), so we can modify and improve it for our customers.

Remember, what launched RMS was actually bad proprietary Xerox printer
_firmware_.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                      http://www.**--****.com/ 

"You can tell the Lisp programmers.  They have pockets full of punch
 cards with close parentheses on them." -->  http://www.**--****.com/ 

Ulrich Hobelmann < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

RMS grounds his philosophy in the distinction between
rivalrous goods and non-rivalrous goods. He uses a sandwich
as an example of a rivalrous. We cannot both eat it, if I
give you my sandwich I go hungry. Emacs is the obvious
example of a non-rivalrous good - RMS gives it away but is
still able to use it himself.

Socialism does not use this distinction. Its creed includes
"From each according to his ability, to each according to
his need." If your need is greater than mine then you get
the sandwich. If my ability is greater than yours then I am
obliged to make it for you.

When people say that RMS is some kind of socialist they are
glossing over the distinction between rivalrous and
non-rivalrous goods.

This distinction is a basic distinction of orthodox economic
theory. The starting point for discussions of software
economics is to note that for private goods - those that are
rivalrous and excludable - the economically efficient price
is the marginal cost of production. Free markets have a
tendency, roughly, more or less, to price goods at their
marginal cost of production. This leads to all the
traditional debates of free-market capitalism versus
socialism about the right way to organise the production of
private goods. Should the means of production be owned
privately or held in common?

If you go down the free market route you hit a {*filter*} problem
with non-rivalrous goods. The economically efficient cost is
zero, and in the absence of excludablility, the free market
drives the price down to zero.

If you don't have copyright right law the price fails to
cover the non-recurring costs of writing software, and you
have under-production of software, which is economically
inefficient.

If you do have copyright law, that keeps the price up, but
now it is above the economically efficient level, leading to
under-consumption of software.

Your economy is going to be inefficient which ever way you
organise it. Having decided on free market capitalism as the
right way way to organise the world of atoms, the
non-rivalrous world of bits throws you a curve ball, and
hits you with a knotty conundrum.

Now that I've filled in the intellectual background, you are
at the point at which the arguments about copyright and the
GPL begin. I suggest having them in a different forum, not
comp.lang.lisp.

The point that I actually want to make is that if you go
round saying the "RMS is quite socialist at heart" every-one
who has reached the starting point in this debate, which
ever side they favour, will think ill of you. Your
intellectual reputation will be ruined.

Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland