Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Coding and Programming › Trying to learn LISP but having problems with EMACS?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Trying to learn LISP but having problems with EMACS?

So I am new to coding, i have done coding in C before very briefly a few years ago (and i wont pretend i remember any of it). Any I found a website which seems to be a great introduction and they talk about using LISP so i have been reading through this and once i got to the exercises bit i thought ill download EMACS and give it a go.

This is the text I am using to learn;
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-10.html

The first problem i had when that emacs was not using the same language I was (Iwas using scheme) so I have now switched to using racket which is much bettter.

Now I have a new query which is solely to do with my writing in scheme;
I was trying to come up with an alternative method for calculating the square root of a number, and I found a method that works (obviously its not as efficient as the newton method).
Here is the code;
(define (sqrt-iter guess x) (if (good-enough? guess x) guess (sqrt-iter (improve guess) x))) (define (improve guess) (- guess (/ (abs (- (* guess guess) 25)) 25))) (define (good-enough? guess x) (< (abs (- (* guess guess) x)) 0.1)) (define (sqrtl x) (sqrt-iter 1.0 x)) (sqrtl 25) [code] The problem that I am having is hopefully fairly obvious, if you look at my definition of an improved guess I have had to input the number that i was trying to find the square root for, how would I amend this code so that I can just put a letter in place of this number? Thanks[code]
(define (sqrt-iter guess x)
(if (good-enough? guess x)
guess
(sqrt-iter (improve guess)
x)))
(define (improve guess)
(- guess (/ (abs (- (* guess guess) 25)) 25)))
(define (good-enough? guess x)
(< (abs (- (* guess guess) x)) 0.1))
(define (sqrtl x)
(sqrt-iter 1.0 x))
(sqrtl 25)
The problem that I am having is hopefully fairly obvious, if you look at my definition of an improved guess I have had to input the number that i was trying to find the square root for, how would I amend this code so that I can just put a letter in place of this number? Thanks[code]

The problem that I am having is hopefully fairly obvious, if you look at my definition of an improved guess I have had to input the number that i was trying to find the square root for, how would I amend this code so that I can just put a letter in place of this number?
Thanks
Edited by Point Blank Rob - 6/28/13 at 8:37am
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
*DISCLAIMER* (Click to show)
I am not a professional programmer, so please take my following opinion lightly and wait for other people to answer before you consider following any of my advice.

tl;dr
Learn Python first, then Lisp. Use this book to learn Python.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuizelON

*DISCLAIMER* (Click to show)
I am not a professional programmer, so please take my following opinion lightly and wait for other people to answer before you consider following any of my advice.

tl;dr
Learn Python first, then Lisp. Use this book to learn Python.
Okay thanks for the info, I will give that a go tomorrow morning and see how it compares.
With regards to the reason I am learning it is simply for the sake of learning at the moment as I am a chemistry student and very mathematically minded.
I did actually manage to solve my original problem in that i started using a different compiler (racket), emacs was obviously trying to use a different language.
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuizelON

*DISCLAIMER* (Click to show)
I am not a professional programmer, so please take my following opinion lightly and wait for other people to answer before you consider following any of my advice.

tl;dr
Learn Python first, then Lisp. Use this book to learn Python.

I'm must disagree. I like python and love lisp, but python is NOT better for learning programming than lisp. Lisp syntax is mostly non-existent leaving more time to focus on problem solving. MIT chose lisp over other languages for a reason. The reason is that the language is simple, yet much more powerful than python (for proof, the spec is less than 100 pages (97 IIRC), yet supports many higher-order programming principles not truly offered in python (eg. lambda -- before you say it is, you should realize that guido dislikes functional programming and pythons poor lambda implementation is practically useless))

@OP:

Your problem is that lisp is a category of languages (each one called a dialect of lisp because the principles are the same, but the keywords and other things are a little different). Emacs uses it's own version of lisp. Common Lisp is the biggest one in terms of commercial support. Scheme is the dialect created at MIT specifically for use in their courses as it's easy to learn and teach (it also sees commercial use in quite a number of companies and was the inspiration for javascript). The reason that Emacs didn't recognize "define" is that define is a scheme keyword while Emacs and CL (common lisp) use "defun" instead.

I believe that if you already learned the principles of C, then Scheme has MUCH more to teach you than python about programming.

How you should proceed if you with learning scheme:

1. Don't use Emacs (unless you already know it) as it's hard enough to learn on it's own

2. DO use racket (Dr. Racket as it provides a great interactive environment for learning). It's the most widely used and supported scheme platform (and it's got loads of documentation and quite a few useful libraries).

3. DO start with SICP (like you were) or "The Little Schemer" (PDF). SICP was designed for MIT's intro to computers class (ie. programming 101). It's not the easiest book (hey, it's MIT), but if you study it, you will learn things about programming that many books don't teach. The Little Schemer focuses more on schemes list concepts in a question and answer format (SICP should still be studied, but this book will probably make it a little easier). While neither will introduce you to the most advanced scheme concepts (specifically those related to certain high-level functional concepts), they (especially SICP) will give you a firm grasp of programming (not just the step by step process of how to program in scheme, but some of the all-important algorithms that every programmer needs to know).

4. DO ask for help here. I and several others are willing to explain concepts and examples if you just ask.

5. Remember, programming isn't easy, but it does get easier as you go along.

Edited by hajile - 6/27/13 at 8:39pm
Recursion ftw...
 The Ultimate Cooling Machine (24 items) Play Server (7 items) NAS (10 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3930k @4.8-5.2 Asus Rampage IV Black Edition 3x R9-290 Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB @1866C9
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Intel 750 400GB 2x Samsung 840 EVO 500GB (1TB) SanDisk Ultra II 960GB EK Rampage IV BE Water Block
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x Swiftech D5 w/ EK Dual Pump Top XSPC EX480, EX360 & 2x Phobya 1080 EK Supremacy EVO CPU Block EK Advanced 250mL Res
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Copper Tubing w/ push fittings 3x EK-FC R9-290X Lamptron FC-5V2 Windows 10 Pro
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung U28D590D 4K Leopold Otaku Corsair AX1200i Silverstone TJ07, heavily modified
Corsair M65 Corsair MM600 Sennheiser HD595 / HD428 / HD280 Corsair SP2500
CPUCPUMotherboardRAM
Intel Xeon E5620 Intel Xeon E5620 Dell R710 Mobo Hynix 144GB DDR3 ECC PC3L-10600R
Hard DriveCaseOther
Intel X25-M G2 80GB Dell 710 2.5" - Google Search Appliance Dell Perc H700 Raid Controller
CPUCPUMotherboardRAM
Intel Xeon E5-2670 v1 Intel Xeon E5-2670 v1 SuperMicro X9DRL-iF 64GB Kingston ECC (kvr16r11d4/16HA)
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
12x 4TB HGST 5K4000 Scythe AP-29 FreeNAS Corsair AX750
CaseOther
Norco RPC-4224 3x LSI 9211-8i (HBA)
 The Ultimate Cooling Machine (24 items) Play Server (7 items) NAS (10 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3930k @4.8-5.2 Asus Rampage IV Black Edition 3x R9-290 Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB @1866C9
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Intel 750 400GB 2x Samsung 840 EVO 500GB (1TB) SanDisk Ultra II 960GB EK Rampage IV BE Water Block
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x Swiftech D5 w/ EK Dual Pump Top XSPC EX480, EX360 & 2x Phobya 1080 EK Supremacy EVO CPU Block EK Advanced 250mL Res
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Copper Tubing w/ push fittings 3x EK-FC R9-290X Lamptron FC-5V2 Windows 10 Pro
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung U28D590D 4K Leopold Otaku Corsair AX1200i Silverstone TJ07, heavily modified
Corsair M65 Corsair MM600 Sennheiser HD595 / HD428 / HD280 Corsair SP2500
CPUCPUMotherboardRAM
Intel Xeon E5620 Intel Xeon E5620 Dell R710 Mobo Hynix 144GB DDR3 ECC PC3L-10600R
Hard DriveCaseOther
Intel X25-M G2 80GB Dell 710 2.5" - Google Search Appliance Dell Perc H700 Raid Controller
CPUCPUMotherboardRAM
Intel Xeon E5-2670 v1 Intel Xeon E5-2670 v1 SuperMicro X9DRL-iF 64GB Kingston ECC (kvr16r11d4/16HA)
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
12x 4TB HGST 5K4000 Scythe AP-29 FreeNAS Corsair AX750
CaseOther
Norco RPC-4224 3x LSI 9211-8i (HBA)
Thanks hajile, rep added, I'm going to stick with the MIT scheme for no since ive got it working with racket, managed to do the first lot of exercises (although it doesnt provide answers) so I'm confident I should be able to continue ploughing through it, glad to know theres help available if I need it.
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
New problem updated in the initial post, I am sure there is an easy fix for this I just cant see what it is
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajile

I'm must disagree. I like python and love lisp, but python is NOT better for learning programming than lisp. Lisp syntax is mostly non-existent leaving more time to focus on problem solving. MIT chose lisp over other languages for a reason. The reason is that the language is simple, yet much more powerful than python (for proof, the spec is less than 100 pages (97 IIRC), yet supports many higher-order programming principles not truly offered in python (eg. lambda -- before you say it is, you should realize that guido dislikes functional programming and pythons poor lambda implementation is practically useless))

...

I believe that if you already learned the principles of C, then Scheme has MUCH more to teach you than python about programming.
With all due respect, I must also disagree with you.

1. "Lisp syntax is mostly non-existent leaving more time to focus on problem solving."
I completely agree with the first part of this statement, but I do not believe you can make the conclusion you made in the second part of the statement. When looking at an example of LISP code, the multiple amount of enclosing parentheses can be very bug prone. Also, the relatively non-English like syntax LISP has (when compared to Python) can be very confusing to new programmers, which you failed to recognize in your post.

2. "The reason is that the language is simple, yet much more powerful than python, yet supports many higher-order programming principles not truly offered in python."
I can't argue with you on this point, except when you said that the language is simple, but I already addressed that in the previous point. However, even though LISP is more powerful than Python, I don't think that is really important to a beginning programmer.

3. "I believe that if you already learned the principles of C, then Scheme has MUCH more to teach you than python about programming."
Like the OP said in the first post, "So I am new to coding, i have done coding in C before very briefly a few years ago (and i wont pretend i remember any of it)." As you can clearly conclude from the first sentence of the post, the OP has not "already learned the principles of C," which for some reason you thought he/she did.

tl;dr
Even though I believe that LISP is THE GREATEST PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE EVER, I do not believe that it is well suited for someone beginning in the field. That is why I would recommend a language similar to LISP, but more friendly and forgiving to the user, Python. However, it is completely up to the user to decide which language he/she wants to start with, but thankfully, in this case, it won't be something like C, C++, or Java (while they are fairly good programming languages, they are absolutely horrible for new programmers no matter what point anybody brings up).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank Rob

New problem updated in the initial post, I am sure there is an easy fix for this I just cant see what it is
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the formatting in your post is very hard to read/understand. Please try to use the code formatting (it's on the 'toolbar' and looks like a paper document).
Edited by BuizelON - 6/28/13 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank Rob

So I am new to coding, i have done coding in C before very briefly a few years ago (and i wont pretend i remember any of it). Any I found a website which seems to be a great introduction and they talk about using LISP so i have been reading through this and once i got to the exercises bit i thought ill download EMACS and give it a go.

This is the text I am using to learn;
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-10.html

The first problem i had when that emacs was not using the same language I was (Iwas using scheme) so I have now switched to using racket which is much bettter.

Now I have a new query which is solely to do with my writing in scheme;
I was trying to come up with an alternative method for calculating the square root of a number, and I found a method that works (obviously its not as efficient as the newton method).
Here is the code;
(define (sqrt-iter guess x) (if (good-enough? guess x) guess (sqrt-iter (improve guess) x))) (define (improve guess) (- guess (/ (abs (- (* guess guess) 25)) 25))) (define (good-enough? guess x) (< (abs (- (* guess guess) x)) 0.1)) (define (sqrtl x) (sqrt-iter 1.0 x)) (sqrtl 25) [code] The problem that I am having is hopefully fairly obvious, if you look at my definition of an improved guess I have had to input the number that i was trying to find the square root for, how would I amend this code so that I can just put a letter in place of this number? Thanks[code]
(define (sqrt-iter guess x)
(if (good-enough? guess x)
guess
(sqrt-iter (improve guess)
x)))
(define (improve guess)
(- guess (/ (abs (- (* guess guess) 25)) 25)))
(define (good-enough? guess x)
(< (abs (- (* guess guess) x)) 0.1))
(define (sqrtl x)
(sqrt-iter 1.0 x))
(sqrtl 25)
The problem that I am having is hopefully fairly obvious, if you look at my definition of an improved guess I have had to input the number that i was trying to find the square root for, how would I amend this code so that I can just put a letter in place of this number? Thanks[code]

The problem that I am having is hopefully fairly obvious, if you look at my definition of an improved guess I have had to input the number that i was trying to find the square root for, how would I amend this code so that I can just put a letter in place of this number?
Thanks

Let me straighten that code up just a little (what you do is use a spoiler and then change the format (second button going right to left) to "formatted")

your scheme with a little spacing and linebreaks (Click to show)
```(define (sqrt-iter guess x)
(if (good-enough? guess x)
guess
(sqrt-iter (improve guess) x)))

(define (improve guess)
(- guess
(/ (abs (- (* guess guess) 25))
25)))

(define (good-enough? guess x)
(< (abs (- (* guess guess) x)) 0.1))

(define (sqrtl x) (sqrt-iter 1.0 x))

(sqrtl 25)
```

What you're attempting to use is still Newton's method, but you've got a mistake in the formula. The formula is (g is a guess; x is original number)

f(g) = g^2 - x ;;; this is the original function

f'(g) = 2*g ;;; this is the derivative of the original function (if you don't know, that's a little bit of calculus)

g1 = g0 - ( f(g0) / f'(g0) ) ;;;this is the part you iterate over

g2 = g1 - ( f(g1) / f'(g1) )

g3 = g2 - ( f(g2) / f'(g2) ) ;;; and so on until you get accurate enough

What your guess code should look like. (Click to show)
```
(- guess
(/ (- (* guess guess) original-number)
(* 2 guess)))
```

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuizelON

With all due respect, I must also disagree with you.
1. "Lisp syntax is mostly non-existent leaving more time to focus on problem solving."
I completely agree with the first part of this statement, but I do not believe you can make the conclusion you made in the second part of the statement. When looking at an example of LISP code, the multiple amount of enclosing parentheses can be very bug prone. Also, the relatively non-English like syntax LISP has (when compared to Python) can be very confusing to new programmers, which you failed to recognize in your post.

2. "The reason is that the language is simple, yet much more powerful than python, yet supports many higher-order programming principles not truly offered in python."
I can't argue with you on this point, except when you said that the language is simple, but I already addressed that in the previous point. However, even though LISP is more powerful than Python, I don't think that is really important to a beginning programmer.

3. "I believe that if you already learned the principles of C, then Scheme has MUCH more to teach you than python about programming."
Like the OP said in the first post, "So I am new to coding, i have done coding in C before very briefly a few years ago (and i wont pretend i remember any of it)." As you can clearly conclude from the first sentence of the post, the OP has not "already learned the principles of C," which for some reason you thought he/she did.

tl;dr
Even though I believe that LISP is THE GREATEST PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE EVER, I do not believe that it is well suited for someone beginning in the field. That is why I would recommend a language similar to LISP, but more friendly and forgiving to the user, Python. However, it is completely up to the user to decide which language he/she wants to start with, but thankfully, in this case, it won't be something like C, C++, or Java (while they are fairly good programming languages, they are absolutely horrible for new programmers no matter what point anybody brings up).
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the formatting in your post is very hard to read/understand. Please try to use the code formatting (it's on the 'toolbar' and looks like a paper document).

1. Try coding what you saw in python. It doesn't look better. Python has it's own hidden problem; if you indent more than a couple of times, it is very hard to keep track of which block you are in. I've had this bite me in the past when I've copied in code and thought I had indented it properly. I now use visual indentation indicators in VIM to alleviate that problem, but I also use parenthesis counters (which are supported on every text editor you can think of except MS notepad). It is worth noting that the code samples you linked to are not for the language the OP is learning and are instead for common lisp. I would once again challenge you to write this code in python and compare.

Look up M-expressions. When John McCarthy first discovered lisp, he intended to use M-expressions to make the code look more like FORTRAN. If you mess around with M-exp, you will find that you can make your code look a lot like python code (take a look at the Scheme sweet expressions if that's your thing). It turns out that most people who program in lisp PREFER the parenthesis over M-exp. Finally,

2. Once again, if your editor matches parenthesis, they aren't a problem. Even if you had to count them by hand, they would still be easier syntax than Python or even C as there are fewer rules to remember which necessarily means that more time is left. The power of a language is always important. If you know scheme, it's easier to learn the powerful features of scheme than to learn another language and then learn those features. Since the overhead of learning the language is minimal, it doesn't waste much time if you never touch the language again and it won't hinder the memorization of the rules another language has.

3. If he/she did not actually learn anything, then scheme is still a great first language (that's what it was designed for and many prestigious colleges and universities still require it either as an intro class or a "learn on your own because you'll still need it"). If important parts of programming were grasped, then they will come back quickly. I find it interesting that people seldom forget how to program in scheme -- even if they never use it. The simplicity of the syntax means that (unlike C) going for long periods without use doesn't hurt nearly as bad.

I don't know if lisp is the greatest programming language, but it's power and simplicity are very hard to beat (perhaps prolog or forth come close?). Python is a good language, but it doesn't compare to what scheme offers if for no other reason than a lack of usable functional methods nor in major areas such as block vs functional scoping. Ruby would be a much better comparison. Although it uses block scoping (causing interesting effects), it is much more lisp-like. As to the worst languages to learn first, I first learned IBM BASIC when I was 10 or so and my next language was perl (at about 12) with Javascript quickly following (I only thought I'd learned it -- there was so much about JS I didn't know that I would have if I had known scheme). I don't remember the exact order of the languages I learned after that, but if I could do it over, I'd start with lisp (and then C).

Edited by hajile - 6/28/13 at 1:59pm
original-number is not defined so you cant use that;
I am also confident that my method is different to newtons method, which would be more obvious discussing them in plain english or algebra should make this more obvious;
Newtons method: if we call the initial guess g and the number we are square rooting y;
y/g=x (x+g)/2= new g REPEAT

My method;
g^2=z z-y=k g-k/y=new g REPEAT

If we imagine we are trying to find the square root of 9 and use a guess of 4;
newtons method gives; 9/4=2.25 (2.25+4) / 2= 3.125

my method gives; 4^2=16 16-9=7 7 / 9= 0.778 4 - 0.778 = 3.222

Obviously my method is less efficient, but this doesnt both me since it is an alternative method and i didnt want to end up simply typing out the solution given in the MIT example since I wouldnt learn anything from doing that.
It is worth noting if you use my method that it only returns results quickly for numbers lower than 50, above this value it takes increasingly long, also the values returned are negative.
Thanks
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
 Golden 2500k Raven (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz 24/7 Asus P8P67 Powercolor HD6870 PCS+ G.Skill Ripjaw 1600mhz (2 x 2gb)
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial C300 SSD 128GB Samsung Blu-ray reader Windows 7 pro 64bit Samsung 32"
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
logitech wireless NZXT Hale90 650W Raven 02-E logitech wireless
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Coding and Programming
• Trying to learn LISP but having problems with EMACS?
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Coding and Programming › Trying to learn LISP but having problems with EMACS?