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

Common Lisp homepage

lisp-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 313 posts

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#61

Post by TurboHaskal »

susam wrote: post #42
TurboHaskal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CCL is available from homebrew. You can also simply download the compiler as well as the cocoa based IDE from the App Store.

I can't find CCL in Homebrew. $ brew search ccl ==> Searching local taps... cclive ==> Searching taps on GitHub... ==> Searching blacklisted, migrated and deleted formulae... $ brew search clozure ==> Searching local taps... ==> Searching taps on GitHub... ==> Searching blacklisted, migrated and deleted formulae... No formula found for "clozure". Open pull requests: clozure-cl 1.11.5 (restoration of a deleted formula…

Oh, you're right. That's a bummer.

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#62

Post by mark_l_watson »

xyrouter wrote: post #27
mark_l_watson wrote: post #20

Nice web site! I have been using Common Lisp since 1983 when I updated my Xerox 1108 Lisp Nachine. In the last 35 years I have probably only averaged using Commin Lisp for about 10% of my development but still love the language. One problem the Lisp world has is too many fine implementations of dialects of different Lisp languages. I find it impossible to not experiment with most of them.

What insights do you gain by experimenting with different implementations of Common Lisp? Can you share some of those insights or things you learnt by experimenting with different implementations of Common Lisp?

I don’t have much to say about different versions of Common Lisp. I have mostly been using SBCL for years, except sometime switching to Clozure for faster compilation.

I experiment more with different versions of Scheme: Gambit, Chez, and Guile. I really like the Racket ecosystem - a lot of good work is done around Racket. I don;t much use Clozure (except for my hobby site cookingspace.com) unless I am using it because that is what a customer uses.

Church, for Probabilistic programming is interesting but it was apparently been supplanted by WebPPL(which is not a Lisp).

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#63

Post by mtreis86 »

FractalLP wrote: post #53
susam wrote: post #7

Lisp is quite popular at my current workplace. A few popular open source projects published by our organization have been written in Clojure (a dialect of Lisp that runs on JVM and CLR). A few domain specific languages used internally in our organization are also inspired by Lisp. On a more personal front, I find Lisp to be simple, elegant, and expressive. I use Common Lisp (SBCL) for personal use. Working with Lisp…

I'd say several reasons: 1.) a lot of folks have trouble with the abstactness 2.) a lot of folks think C syntax is how all languages should be 3.) the lisp ecosystem is fractured into too many lisps like SBCL, Clojure, Racket, Allegro, Franz, Picolisp, ABCL, Shen...etc, so some confusion amongst those that are new 4.) poor windows support for SBCL...it literally tells you it is experimental if I recall correctly. Set…

6 - what about https://common-lisp.net/project/bordeaux-threads/

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#64

Post by drmeister »

This is a very nice web site describing a programming language with unparalleled expressiveness, power and permanence.

I am heavily invested in Common Lisp. We are developing a programming environment for designing new materials and molecules called Cando (https://github.com/drmeister/cando) using Common Lisp as a scripting language. Cando is running on Clasp (https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp), a new Common Lisp implementation that interoperates with C++ and is based on LLVM.

What attracted me to the language, after 35 years programming in almost everything else, was how organically it lets one write software and how I don't have to worry about it fading like the next programming fad.

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#65

Post by xyproto »

(mapcar #'string-downcase (list "Hello" "world!"))

This is a great example of why I don't want to use Common Lisp.

Compare with Python:

[word.lower() for word in ("Hello", "world!")]

Beating Node and Ruby in terms of speed is also a big non-argument, with so many attractive programming languages to choose from that are both fast and good looking.

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#66

Post by pavelludiq »

xyproto wrote: post #65

(mapcar #'string-downcase (list "Hello" "world!")) This is a great example of why I don't want to use Common Lisp. Compare with Python: [word.lower() for word in ("Hello", "world!")] Beating Node and Ruby in terms of speed is also a big non-argument, with so many attractive programming languages to choose from that are both fast and good looking.

  (loop for item in '("Hello" "world!") collect (string-downcase item))

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#67

Post by vram22 »

Is there any official (other than any ANSI standard site) or quasi-official or unofficial main site for Lisp or Common Lisp?

I had seen a couple of other sites which seemed like they might be that earlier, like https://common-lisp.net/ and the site of the Association of Lisp Users, which I vaguely remember as being at http://alu.org , but now a Google search shows some other sites instead (from the first few hits I looked at). And now there is this one mentioned in the OP. I looked at its About page, http://lisp-lang.org/about/ , but it does not seem to show any such info.

Update: I saw this on the common-lisp.net site:

"This site is one among many gateways to Common Lisp."

which seems to indicate that there was/is no single "(un)official" one.

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#68

Post by rjsw »

pjmlp wrote: post #38
susam wrote: post #7

Lisp is quite popular at my current workplace. A few popular open source projects published by our organization have been written in Clojure (a dialect of Lisp that runs on JVM and CLR). A few domain specific languages used internally in our organization are also inspired by Lisp. On a more personal front, I find Lisp to be simple, elegant, and expressive. I use Common Lisp (SBCL) for personal use. Working with Lisp…

> I sometimes wonder why Lisp has not been more popular in the technology industry. One major reason was hardware. Lisp might have started in IBM mainframes, but the development environment from Xerox and the Lisp Machines that followed up where quite expensive for single developers, back when the industry was heavily focused on bringing down the costs of time-sharing services, which where owned mostly by mainframes,…

Lisp ran on the first UNIX workstations too, Franz Lisp ran fine on even the earliest Sun machines.

Lucid pivoted from Lisp on UNIX to C++ on UNIX, they didn't have anything to do with Lisp Machines.

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#69

Post by rauhl »

s_kilk wrote: post #18
susam wrote: post #7

Lisp is quite popular at my current workplace. A few popular open source projects published by our organization have been written in Clojure (a dialect of Lisp that runs on JVM and CLR). A few domain specific languages used internally in our organization are also inspired by Lisp. On a more personal front, I find Lisp to be simple, elegant, and expressive. I use Common Lisp (SBCL) for personal use. Working with Lisp…

> I sometimes wonder why Lisp has not been more popular in the technology industry. Is it the lack of sufficient marketing? Is it the lack of an extensive library ecosystem? Data-point of one here, but I was instantly turned off by the conflation of the empty-list, nil, and boolean-false. I could tell instantly that I'd have a hard time interfacing with data from other real-world systems, so I decided to skip CL and…

> Data-point of one here, but I was instantly turned off by the conflation of the empty-list, nil, and boolean-false.

Oddly enough, that’s almost always something I consider a feature, even when I'm interfacing with the outside world. If I’m expecting a list, then NIL is just an empty list; if I'm expecting a value, then distinguishing NIL & false hasn’t caused me trouble. Worst-case, it’s been something I take care of at the mapping level, and don’t worry about anywhere else.

In return, actually using Lisp is really pleasant. Using Scheme tends to be a lot more verbose, because it makes a distinction where it doesn’t really have to.

Re: Common Lisp homepage

#70

Post by YouAreGreat »

lispm wrote: post #44
lenkite wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked clojure when I dived into it but lack of static typing is a pain especially once you have got used to the wonderful refactoring and code-intelligence abilities you get by adopting the tools of static typed programming languages like Java/Go/C#/F#. Also performance!

From the dynamic languages the SBCL compiler is something you might want to try. The compiler tells you the usual (?) stuff like missing args, wrong named arguments, missing functions, undefined variables, syntax errors, etc. But Common Lisp has also a (relatively primitive, compared to something like Haskell) type system and the SBCL compiler can make use of type declarations (for compile time type checking and for…

Type declarations in Common Lisp are unsafe. Violating a declaration at runtime is UB.

What SBCL is doing to Common Lisp is similar to what C compiler vendors did to C. In order to win at benchmarks, C compiler vendors started to use UB as a license to miscompile optimized code, which got them better benchmarks.

Common Lisp has very little UB, so the C strategy is harder to execute.

SBCL basically first needs to sucker their users into overusing one corner of the language that does have UB, type declarations.

They get their benchmarks, at the cost of saturating the ecosystem with code that overuses UB, basically poisoning the ecosystem.

Post reply on HN