A Portable LISP Interpreter?

The very first programming language I touched was GW-BASIC, then COBOL, then QBASIC, then FORTRAN, then LISP and PASCAL and C++ and Java, and on to newer things like Visual Basic, ASP, PHP and Javascript, XSLT and so on.  In that chronological order, actually.  But of all those, the one that grabs my attention when I hear its name spoken is LISP.  I spent almost 15 years focusing my programming time on AutoLISP, Visual LISP and dabbling quite a lot with Franz, XLISP and CLOS, but kept going back to Visual LISP (or “VLISP”) because of it’s strong association with graphical environments (AutoCAD).  The combination that Vital LISP brought to the table from the work of Basis Software, later acquired by Autodesk, opened up a whole new world for joining the flexibility and power of AutoLISP with the COM fabric exposed by Windows.

I always loved the way AutoCAD and the VLISP engine provided the substrate for running scripts within AutoCAD much like how Java apps run on the JRE or how PowerShell runs on .NET CLR.  But actually, it dawned on me that a more ideal solution is what you get with KiXtart.  The engine is self-contained and extremely lean and responsive.  Robust and Streamlined, would be two words I would use to describe it. 

Unlike WSH or PowerShell, you don’t have to install anything in order to start executing KiXtart scripts.  You just need access to the Kix32.exe runtime and it just “goes”.  The runtime can be across the network and you can even invoke a local script using a UNC path to the runtime.  It’s ridiculously easy to sit a computer “A”, and run a script sitting on computer “B” using the Kix32.exe on computer “C”, and it works fine.  Ruud van Velsen indeed deserves accolades for not only making this work so well, but for maintaining the vision and direction that keeps it alive today.  Indeed, the KiXtart community is as strong as ever and the online presence is simply amazing.

Why couldn’t there by a similar approach to a LISP runtime?  Is there such a thing?  Every LISP runtime I’ve seen requires labor to set up and there’s the added issues of which dialect is used (XLISP, Franz, Common, NewLISP, etc.).  A stripped-down core library would be fantastic.  Something like AutoLISP but without the AutoCAD-specific functions.  Replace those with added file system, registry, environment, process and WMI interfaces, and the rest tied to COM or even .NET, and, well, geez.  I’d be happy.  I wish I had time to build such a beast.  If anyone has a project going on this, I’d be more than happy to help you test it out and provide feedback.  I’m sure this is a tall order though. 

Just a thought.  Ok, I’m going to bed now.

Back from the Brink of something

What is a "brink" anyway?
Web dictionaries describe it as a "region marking a boundary".  But what is a "boundary"?  For that matter, what is a "region"?  I could go on, but who cares.  This is where I'll be posting script stuff.  Again.  And for those who got pissed off at me last time:  Too Fkking bad.

Packaging Gone Awry?

What's up with packaging these days? It seems every manufacturer, container shipper, and postal carrier entity is experimenting with new ways to package things. Some are borderline clever. Some are just outright dumb. This goes beyond the pack-and-ship aspects. I'm also talking about how desktop and laptop computers are assembled.

Since 2000, I've counted no less than two dozen unique assembly methods used by Dell and HP alone. Screws, thumb-screws, clips, snaps, notches, latches, folding, sliding, lifting, pulling. You name it. What's up with that? Why screws anyway? As if the little toy-like lock hasps are any deterrent to thieves and tinkerers. Just make the cases snap together and be done with it. And if you look at the insides of a computer, oh geez. One minute of gazing and you can easily spot a half-dozen fabrication head-scratchers. Things that make you ask "why do it that way?"

I'm not talking about complicated things either. This applies to simple boxes like the power supply, cd/dvd drives and backplanes. The costs being wasted by overly complicated fastening methods, attachment methods, alignment methods, and so on, is just insane. The reason in most cases is patent blocking. Someone holds patents on the simplest methods and won't play nice with the big players anymore. So they do their own and it ends up being a clusterf**k. Given that not one single manufacturer uses a common-sense assembly approach (except for maybe Apple, in some cases, pardon the pun) I am wondering if it's the patent holder that's to blame. Demanding too high of a price for licensing. Or maybe they just don't want to play at all. Who knows. We're paying the price, both literally and indirectly (ripping our fingers on the sharp edges, contorting to plug things in). Progress and innovation have been tossed into a cell and locked up by attorneys. The 20th century was all about making new things. The 21st century is shaping up to be about protecting things, pure and simple. RIP innovation.

Editorial: Stupid Damn Apple iPhone Commerical

I have to step off the wagon for a moment to bitch about something irritating the living shit out of me: The latest Apple commercial for the iPhone. This is the one that brags about being able to copy and paste crap from one place to another. Such as phone numbers into emails, and so on.

Really? For real?!!

I've been doing that on my cheap, crappy old Blackberry for years. YEARS!!!! God damn years!!!

I have to assume Steve Jobs wasn't consulted about this idea before it went to press. I can't believe he would have consented to it. Of all the cool, innovative things the iPhone can do, copy-and-paste is an embarrassing late-comer to the party. Why would they make a whole commercial for just that one thing? What next, a commercial that they finally got a multi-button mouse?

Yes, I know about the stupid-as-hell "mighty mouse" product. Ironic that I learned to use a computer in the 1980's using a 16-button digitizer mouse. It was fantastic! I could program the buttons to do everything I needed and it saved me a ton of time and effort. But Apple faggoty fans kept saying that a one-button cyclops mouse was "elegant" and "genius". Then the Mighty Mouse comes out and those same two-face bastards go on a back-patting spree with testimonials of how Apple re-innovated the concept of a multi-button mouse. Holy f-ing crap.

I like Apple.

I fucking hate Apple fans.