Re: common lisp vs elisp.

[Emanuel Berg]

Alexandre Garreau wrote:

>>>> I want to make a 2D game tho, that's why I tried to get
>>>> SLIME and SBCL going, maybe one could do SDL2 with that
>>>> and have some sprites bounce off the ceiling...
>>> 
>>> I don't agree to discussions of proprietary software on
>>> GNU mailing lists unless there is intention or project to
>>> make free software out of it.
>> 
>> What's proprietary, GOOL? Yes, Game Oriented Object Lisp
>> (GOOL) is proprietary [1]
>
> So maybe it should be avoided on emacs ML?

I think it should rather be interpreted like this, say some
guy comes and asks, "Hey guys, how does this mail look?
Not good, huh? Any hints what mail client to use these days?
Also my son show great interest in and - I hope - aptitude for
technology, but, as a mere amateur myself, I don't know what
advice to give him to help him take 'the next step'?"

Then you SHOULD NOT reply - "Try Outlook Express, I've used it
for ages, never had any problem. Your son, why don't you buy
a Nintendo for Xmas? Always great fun for the entire family"

Other than that, one is allowed to discuss technology!
The world is not perfect and it will never be. There will
always be proprietary and FOSS software - and maybe free
hardware to a much larger extent than now, we hope - and never
mentioning it won't make it (the proprietary stuff) go away,
anyway...

> Or maybe the fact it’s no longer used, not publicly
> downloadable and usable and buyable, etc. and its
> advertisement wouldn’t lead to its use, makes it okay?
> at least for historical reasons/discussion?

It is OK, no one is suggesting anyone _use_ it.

>> What does it mean that the dialect is made for writing games?
>> You have to have that in _the actual language_ ? :O
>
> What do you mean?

Take Common Lisp. It isn't a Lisp dialect specifically
designed for writing games. Yet you can, for example with SDL
and/or OpenGL. Libraries are enough, you don't have (and
aren't benefited from) designing a new dialect just for that.
I know it worked for them but I still don't like it.

Let's see, the CL for loop is pretty practical - how can we
adjust that to take game development into the equation, or
*iteration*, if you will?

errr

(I don't know if it happened like that - probably not.
Maybe they had good reasons, perhaps associated with hardware
specific optimizations? I still don't like the idea.)

>> Hm, also, what does it mean exactly when a *language* is
>> proprietary? Offer support, write a book? Not anyone can
>> write a compiler and/or other tools legally? Or not anyone
>> can take parts of the language to another language s/he is
>> working on? (Heh, were a lot of programming languages
>> developed by women, I wonder...)
>
> It means it has no free-software implementations.

Yes, but what does that mean in practice, what is it that you
cannot (legally) do with it?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal