Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

fare.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#21

Post by fludlight »

flavio81 wrote: post #14

The author, a famous and well-liked lisper, is not consider ing portability features. CL is an ANSI standard and code often runs with no changes in many distinct CL implementations/compilers/interpreters. Also, related to that point: There are many different CL implementations out there that satisfy different use cases, like for example JVM deployment (ABCL), embedded systems (ECL), speed(SBCL), fast compile times (C…

"How to make Lisp go faster than C" (2006)

http://www.iaeng.org/IJCS/issues_v32/issue_4/IJCS_32_4_19.pd...

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#23

Post by zem »

i_feel_great wrote: post #9

That Racket module functionality where you can add unit tests right with your code ("module+"), but will get stripped when compiled - that thing is quite magical. Is there another system that has this?

https://dlang.org/spec/unittest.html for D

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#24

Post by cosarara97 »

dbcurtis wrote: post #18
flavio81 wrote: post #14

The author, a famous and well-liked lisper, is not consider ing portability features. CL is an ANSI standard and code often runs with no changes in many distinct CL implementations/compilers/interpreters. Also, related to that point: There are many different CL implementations out there that satisfy different use cases, like for example JVM deployment (ABCL), embedded systems (ECL), speed(SBCL), fast compile times (C…

Looking at ECL, it doesn't seem to have a bare metal port? Or am I missing something? I take it "embedded" in this case means "links with your C code", not "runs on bare metal micro-controller."

It does, it's embedded as in "use it inside another program".

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#25

Post by bjoli »

One thing that makes racket shine is it's macro facilities. Syntax case is nice and all that, but Jesus Christ in a chicken basket I wish scheme would have standardised on syntax-parse.

Syntax case vs. syntax parse isn't and will never be close to a fair comparison. Not only is it more powerful, it also provides the users of your macros with proper error messages. It blows both unhygienic and other hygienic macro systems out of the water for anything more complex than very basic macros.

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#26

Post by oumua_don17 »

flavio81 wrote: post #14

The author, a famous and well-liked lisper, is not consider ing portability features. CL is an ANSI standard and code often runs with no changes in many distinct CL implementations/compilers/interpreters. Also, related to that point: There are many different CL implementations out there that satisfy different use cases, like for example JVM deployment (ABCL), embedded systems (ECL), speed(SBCL), fast compile times (C…

>> There are many different CL implementations out there that satisfy different use cases

And now there is also CLASP (LLVM based), great for interfacing with C++ libraries. https://github.com/drmeister/clasp

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#27

Post by jackdaniel »

dbcurtis wrote: post #18
flavio81 wrote: post #14

The author, a famous and well-liked lisper, is not consider ing portability features. CL is an ANSI standard and code often runs with no changes in many distinct CL implementations/compilers/interpreters. Also, related to that point: There are many different CL implementations out there that satisfy different use cases, like for example JVM deployment (ABCL), embedded systems (ECL), speed(SBCL), fast compile times (C…

Looking at ECL, it doesn't seem to have a bare metal port? Or am I missing something? I take it "embedded" in this case means "links with your C code", not "runs on bare metal micro-controller."

Yes, it means that you may link it in your C code or use it standalone (hence – `Embeddable' in name). Lisp programs share ABI with C, so you are able to create library in Common Lisp which will be used from anything having FFI to C ABI.

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#28

Post by laxentasken »

If you do work in CL for a living, may I ask what kind of applications and which area? The reason for my question is that CL (and racket) seems like a very good idea to put some time into but the market for such jobs is dead where I live (sweden). Or those jobs might be held by lispers on a lifetime ...

Re: Why I haven't jumped ship from Common Lisp to Racket just yet

#29

Post by aerique »

laxentasken wrote: post #28

If you do work in CL for a living, may I ask what kind of applications and which area? The reason for my question is that CL (and racket) seems like a very good idea to put some time into but the market for such jobs is dead where I live (sweden). Or those jobs might be held by lispers on a lifetime ...

I don't work in CL for a living but it is my main go-to language (also at work). It is worth it to put some time into even though there's not a big market asking for CL directly.
Post reply on HN