Common Lisp homepage

Post by foo101 » Fri, May 11, 2018, 10:45 AM UTC

oblio wrote: post #259

flavio81 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least optional typing and macros are not considered to be universal benefits for programming. That's just your opinion. >Having a ton of features has been proven in many occasions to be counterproductive. Paradox of choice, higher learning curve, etc. Ok, let's see you need to get the numerical value of several big integrals. You have two choices: a. Pen and paper plus calculator. b. Computer with sophisticated c…

You seem to be a bit too... enthusiastic about this conversation, for my tastes :) I won't go into everything cause it would take way too much time, but I have to point one thing out: > Optional typing dramatically increases execution speed, something that is very relevant and important in 2018. As compared to what? I'm guessing your assumption was that I was thinking about purely dynamic languages? Not really, I was…

Post by FractalLP » Fri, May 11, 2018, 10:58 AM UTC

lispm wrote: post #234

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…

> ABCL, FRANZ, ALLEGRO, SBCL, CLISP, GNU CL, Clozure might all be common lisp, but they are different implementations with different tools That's better than having different languages with different tools: Python, Ruby, Perl, ... share nothing - though they are in a similar coding domain.

Post by svetlyak40wt » Fri, May 11, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

klibertp wrote: post #96

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.

Can you elaborate on why? I know both Python and Common Lisp, neither version looks any better than the other to me. Also, as another commenter notes, the snippets are not actually good translations of each other. Your CL snippet would look like this in Python: list(map(str.tolower, ("Hello", "world!"))) While your Python snippet would look like this in CL (as pavelludiq notes): (loop for word in '("Hello" "world!")…

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

Post by jimbokun » Fri, May 11, 2018, 1:59 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #218

jimbokun wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And a programmer in your average mainstream language in 2018 could reasonably expect to be working in the same language in 2018." Pretty radical claim there, are you sure about that? :)

It’s simple math, really. Let’s say we had 1 million programmers in the 80’s, writing enteprise software costing 1m * 8h * 365d * 10y = too lazy to do the math, let’s say 30 billion dollars. A lot of that software died with the companies using it, so maybe 10 billions’ worth survived, needing today N C programmers, P Cobol programmers, etc. for maintenance. How do you think the numbers and the timespans look from a t…

Post by flavio81 » Fri, May 11, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #260

flavio81 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allright, let's take some list of what can be understood for "mainstream" languages (because, according to other criteria, Lisp is mainstream too.) TIOBE index top 10: Java, C, C++, Python, C#, Visual Basic.NET, PHP, Javascript, SQL, Ruby. let's compare to Lisp and Haskell: - NONE of those langs have the hindley-milner type system, type inference and typeclasses of Haskell. - even Common Lisp's type system is more so…

I do like Lisp, but you should learn better the languages you criticize. C++ allows for compile time execution, improving since C++11. A feature also shared by Nim, D and Jai. C# does offer control how the GC operates, and allows for manually memory management if really required. A feature also supported by D, Modula-3, Active Oberon. .NET Expression trees can be manipulated at runtime. There are GC enabled system pr…