From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!ossa.telenet-ops.be!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Impressing colleagues with Lisp - looking for stories from the trenches References: Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3229353106350910@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 27 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:31:46 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 1020364306 193.71.199.50 (Thu, 02 May 2002 20:31:46 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:31:46 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:32644 * Paolo Amoroso | One of the most interesting recent threads was the one about how people | got started with Lisp. Here is another potentially interesting issue: how | did your impress your clients, bosses or colleagues with Lisp | applications, language features or tools? One of the reasons I ask is | because I haven't impressed anybody--yet :) The first thing I did that impressed a system admin and got him on my side "against" management was to write a small set of wrapper functions around the /etc/passwd database, which you can do in any language, and then write setf methods for them that did the real thing. While any sysadmin knows that changing a user ID involves a file system walk for files owned by the existing user ID and changing them one by one, this operation is not generally thought of as (setf (user-id (find-user "username")) 666) This operation is now abstracted away from the script-like solution and can now also be implemented in the kernel, or by modifying an unmounted file system, or something else. So, a unified approach to getting and setting all the fields of the password file was so attractive that he helped me get Common Lisp in the door. And that is just setf... -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief. 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.