Common Lisp homepage

Post by FractalLP » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:00 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #200

FractalLP wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You quoted two companies using Lisp when there are millions of Java devs. That's like a boxer with a record of 1-500. I love Lisp, but c'mon...I guarantee it has far more hobby users than professional users. ABCL, FRANZ, ALLEGRO, SBCL, CLISP, GNU CL, Clozure might all be common lisp, but they are different implementations with different tools that will confuse a new person and several cost money. Practical Common Lis…

"they are different implementations with different tools that will confuse a new person and several cost money." Right, just like all of these stop developers from learning Java: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Programming/Java_IDEs "SICP is great for a mind-opening experience, but not super useful on how to write modern software and is why the creators dropped it at MIT." Bullshit. Anyone who can understand and a…

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:33 PM UTC

YouAreGreat wrote: post #209

lispm wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be pedantic, those aren't type declarations. They are values of optimization qualities and guide the compiler strategy. > More importantly, the (un)safety of type declaration isn't predicated on any specific safety/speed settings. The mere use of a type declaration implies that the programmer certifies their accuracy inside its scope; With an optimize quality 3 for SAFETY a compiler will not reduce safety, even…

Violation of a type declaration is UB in safe code. SBCL obviously makes use of that fact when inserting assertions.

  Name               Meaning                            
  compilation-speed  speed of the compilation process   
  debug              ease of debugging                  
  safety             run-time error checking            
  space              both code size and run-time space  
  speed              speed of the object code  

Post by taeric » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

Jach wrote: post #141

taeric wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land of Lisp worked well for me. Can't remember any major issues. (That said, I think I also used racket for most of the work, so I had to change some things consciously.) Though, this is a bit of a hard problem for authors. Most code that can fit as snippets or short examples does not have what any code in real projects would have. To that end, the code is literally made mainly for you to try and simulate in your he…

I wonder if LoL was not referring instead to Let Over Lambda which I'd call more timeless... For Land of Lisp there is some implementation specific code the author uses, but he points that out, points out that there are libraries that make a de facto standard for the behavior, but didn't want to introduce quicklisp. (It's a fun book but not the best if your goal is getting productive in a work environment fast, in wh…

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:57 PM UTC

osteele wrote: post #210

kazinator wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

{by whom} Not by me. I'm a skilled Lisp programmer, yet Scheme isn't usable to me a the rudimentary coding level using the core language. There are stumbling blocks at every turn against straightforward Lisp coding. How can it be a Lisp? I can't even rely on Scheme to evaluate the function arguments left to right. Many forms have an "undefined" return value; in Lisp, everything returns a defined value, as a fundament…

Me (GP): Scheme is generally considered a Lisp. Me (now, after reading P and other responses): I was wrong (or at least half-wrong) about this being generally accepted. I was not aware that I've been in a "Scheme is a Lisp" bubble. EDIT: When I was working in Lisp (early to mid nineties), ANSI Common Lisp was relatively recent, and many of my co-workers[1] — a couple of whom in fact were members of the X3J13 committe…

Post by oblio » Thu, May 10, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #191

segmondy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perl, ML, Fortran, Cobol has not faded. You might not like them, you might not use them. But there are tons of them out there and being used in the real world and production systems.

I think it's fair to say those languages have "faded" I would also say Python 2 has "faded" or started to. Faded doesn't mean it isn't used anymore. It mean it's retreated into a niche, and is no longer on the short list for new development, and no longer interesting to most developers.