151–160 of 271 posts
Emacs needs to die for lisp to flourish in a more modern editor.
Light Table was a good start, but we need some power behind similar projects.
I always thought guilemacs was the obvious successor, but it still hasn't happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious over why CL vs Clojure? Any comments.
I have used both in production setting and can say that the tooling for most CL implementations is just plain light years ahead of Clojure, and there is no sign of it really improving. For Clojure the interactive debugging experience is just plain dreadful and for a dynamic language this is pants on head crazy imo. For me a dynamic language has to have a good interactive debugging experience because you have foregone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you prefer it over Clojure? If yes why? I'm a bit versed with Clojure but sometimes I feel that it is not a true lisp.
Much as I love Clojure I find the list vs seq abstraction goes against the lisp tradition.
Clojure's seq extends the abstraction to include maps and sets and other types implementing the interface.
I started a big project at work using Common Lisp in 2017 and could not be happier. Sure, most nice features have trickled down to other languages, but they are rarely as nicely integrated. And Lisp still has many advantages that are not found elsewhere: Unmatched stability, on-demand performance, tunable compiler, CLOS, condition system, and Macros to name a few. It has its warts too but which language does not? I f…
Curious over why CL vs Clojure? Any comments.
I started a big project at work using Common Lisp in 2017 and could not be happier. Sure, most nice features have trickled down to other languages, but they are rarely as nicely integrated. And Lisp still has many advantages that are not found elsewhere: Unmatched stability, on-demand performance, tunable compiler, CLOS, condition system, and Macros to name a few. It has its warts too but which language does not? I f…
Curious over why CL vs Clojure? Any comments.
If emacs is an obstacle to Common Lisp in 2017, maybe what's needed is a Lisp-interaction plugin for vi(m) (or whatever it is that vim uses in lieu of emacs modes). I don't get the hype for modal editing but you can't argue with the data clearly showing emacs users are in the minority.
Honestly I don't think Emacs is an obstacle to people who use Vim. It's an obstacle to people who use IDEs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a good REPL is important, though.
REPL and interpretation are orthogonal concepts. SBCL (most common CL implementation) don't have interpreter at all. It complies into machine code before execution even in REPL.
sb-ext:*evaluator-mode*
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, the ASDF information is somewhat dated. It will work, but the central-registry has been deprecated for years. I'm not even sure how it might work on windows. If you're recommending quicklisp, there's the local-projects approach, otherwise there's $HOME/common-lisp/
Yeah, I need to examine a bit more of the situation with local-projects. I reject ~/common-lisp because I have my own directory structure, thanks. If I can symlink farm under ~/common-lisp, then what's the difference? :) (and it's not even a hidden directory, so it clutters up ~).
Well in that case you have two options still:
~/.local/share/common-lisp/source/
~/.config/common-lisp/source-registry.conf.d/
Of course if the symlink farm is working for you, that's fine; it just has issues (some historic with some implementations doing odd things with TRUENAME, and of course the big one is "windows").
[edit] forgot some other options:
* setting the CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY environment variable
* using one of the newer functions for configuration, particularly with the :tree directive which in many cases removes the need for symlink farms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious over why CL vs Clojure? Any comments.
Clojure is tied to the Java environment. Someone who has no use for or interest in that environment has no use for Clojure.
I guess you're not familiar with ClojureScript and/or Clojure CLR?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I need to examine a bit more of the situation with local-projects. I reject ~/common-lisp because I have my own directory structure, thanks. If I can symlink farm under ~/common-lisp, then what's the difference? :) (and it's not even a hidden directory, so it clutters up ~).
> (and it's not even a hidden directory, so it clutters up ~). Well in that case you have two options still: ~/.local/share/common-lisp/source/ or put config file(s) in: ~/.config/common-lisp/source-registry.conf.d/ And keep your lisp source in any arbitrary number of directories. Of course if the symlink farm is working for you, that's fine; it just has issues (some historic with some implementations doing odd thing…
Thank you for your kind information.