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

An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

simonsafar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 194 posts

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#21

Post by dreamcompiler »

pfdietz wrote: post #8
hedora wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Java took over by targeting large teams of inexperienced developers. C++ took over by adding OO to C with zero cost abstractions, and then evolving into modern C++ (which discourages OO and encourages composition via template instantiation) without leaving programs behind. Lisp has supported composition forever (it is one of the big advantages of functional programming), and the macro language is similar to templates…

> is often interpreted Every competitive Common Lisp implementation has compilation. SBCL defaults to not even using an interpreter for eval.

And CCL doesn't even have an interpreter. Every form you type into the REPL is compiled. If you want an interpreter in CCL you have to write it yourself.

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#22

Post by aredox »

FredPret wrote: post #4
fooker wrote: post #2

It's a bit sad that this ecosystem has fallen out of favor for mainstream software development. One could have designed OOP like frontends to this fairly easily, and I'm sure there are existing ones. How did Java and C++ take over?

I’ve tried multiple times to get into SBCL, but every time I run into the problem that I have to learn Emacs first. I know there are lots of other ways to work with SBCL, but they are either second-class citizens or paid.

There is Lem too.

https://lem-project.github.io/

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#23

Post by pfdietz »

hayley-patton wrote: post #18
pfdietz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is often interpreted Every competitive Common Lisp implementation has compilation. SBCL defaults to not even using an interpreter for eval.

SBCL eval interprets until you hit a lambda form, at which point it will compile (last I checked). But you are much more correct than who you replied to :)

This is reminding me there is the sb-fasteval feature, which I have not been testing.

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#24

Post by medo-bear »

hedora wrote: post #5
fooker wrote: post #2

It's a bit sad that this ecosystem has fallen out of favor for mainstream software development. One could have designed OOP like frontends to this fairly easily, and I'm sure there are existing ones. How did Java and C++ take over?

Java took over by targeting large teams of inexperienced developers. C++ took over by adding OO to C with zero cost abstractions, and then evolving into modern C++ (which discourages OO and encourages composition via template instantiation) without leaving programs behind. Lisp has supported composition forever (it is one of the big advantages of functional programming), and the macro language is similar to templates…

> I think the big problem is that it is difficult to scale lisp projects with inexperienced developers (loses to java) and is not zero cost (has a GC, is often interpreted; loses to c, c++ and now rust).

i think scalability problem is a bit overstated. the biggest issue with lisp becoming popular is that it doesn't have a large user base and is not a new language like rust. however despite being old, common lisp /still/ has so many 'novel' things in it that in metrics of programmer ergonomics and programming user interface make common lisp a big winner for me.

as regards zero cost, lisp programs can be made arbitrarily close to being zero cost, but here be deamons.

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#25

Post by medo-bear »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #21
pfdietz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is often interpreted Every competitive Common Lisp implementation has compilation. SBCL defaults to not even using an interpreter for eval.

And CCL doesn't even have an interpreter. Every form you type into the REPL is compiled. If you want an interpreter in CCL you have to write it yourself.

worth mentioning is that CCL is finally back into active development !

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#26

Post by medo-bear »

linguae wrote: post #20
fooker wrote: post #2

It's a bit sad that this ecosystem has fallen out of favor for mainstream software development. One could have designed OOP like frontends to this fairly easily, and I'm sure there are existing ones. How did Java and C++ take over?

Let’s make a trip back to the early and mid 1990s when C++ was a young language and Java was under development (it was released in 1995). At the time the most popular object-oriented language was Smalltalk, Common Lisp was at its peak of commercial popularity (largely in symbolic AI niches), and there were other niche OO languages that were heavily influenced by Smalltalk and Common Lisp (Objective-C in the NeXT worl…

>I think had there been solid cheap or free Smalltalk and Common Lisp implementations around 1992, Java wouldn’t have gained a foothold, though C++ would have still been very appealing to C developers, though perhaps if Objective-C were more broadly available to non-NeXT developers, it would’ve been a formidable competitor to C++ in terms of providing a “C with objects” environment.

100% agree. i think it is also interesting that in comparison to before lisp community of today is so supportive of free software, standing more on the left wing of the open source community.

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#27

Post by linguae »

medo-bear wrote: post #26
linguae wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s make a trip back to the early and mid 1990s when C++ was a young language and Java was under development (it was released in 1995). At the time the most popular object-oriented language was Smalltalk, Common Lisp was at its peak of commercial popularity (largely in symbolic AI niches), and there were other niche OO languages that were heavily influenced by Smalltalk and Common Lisp (Objective-C in the NeXT worl…

>I think had there been solid cheap or free Smalltalk and Common Lisp implementations around 1992, Java wouldn’t have gained a foothold, though C++ would have still been very appealing to C developers, though perhaps if Objective-C were more broadly available to non-NeXT developers, it would’ve been a formidable competitor to C++ in terms of providing a “C with objects” environment. 100% agree. i think it is also int…

Interestingly enough, the free software movement came about due to Richard Stallman’s frustrations with Symbolics, one of the Lisp machine companies that came from the same MIT AI lab he worked in. It’s just that RMS chose to reimplement Unix (GNU) instead of creating a free Lisp operating system, though one could argue half-jokingly and half-seriously that GNU Emacs is that free Lisp OS.

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#28

Post by fooker »

linguae wrote: post #20
fooker wrote: post #2

It's a bit sad that this ecosystem has fallen out of favor for mainstream software development. One could have designed OOP like frontends to this fairly easily, and I'm sure there are existing ones. How did Java and C++ take over?

Let’s make a trip back to the early and mid 1990s when C++ was a young language and Java was under development (it was released in 1995). At the time the most popular object-oriented language was Smalltalk, Common Lisp was at its peak of commercial popularity (largely in symbolic AI niches), and there were other niche OO languages that were heavily influenced by Smalltalk and Common Lisp (Objective-C in the NeXT worl…

The economics of this is interesting to hear.

GNU Common Lisp (https://www.gnu.org/software/gcl/) seems to have existed in various forms from the mid 1980s, but it was probably outclassed by the contemporary big tech companies.

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#29

Post by EdwardCoffin »

linguae wrote: post #27
medo-bear wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think had there been solid cheap or free Smalltalk and Common Lisp implementations around 1992, Java wouldn’t have gained a foothold, though C++ would have still been very appealing to C developers, though perhaps if Objective-C were more broadly available to non-NeXT developers, it would’ve been a formidable competitor to C++ in terms of providing a “C with objects” environment. 100% agree. i think it is also int…

Interestingly enough, the free software movement came about due to Richard Stallman’s frustrations with Symbolics, one of the Lisp machine companies that came from the same MIT AI lab he worked in. It’s just that RMS chose to reimplement Unix (GNU) instead of creating a free Lisp operating system, though one could argue half-jokingly and half-seriously that GNU Emacs is that free Lisp OS.

I understood it came about due to RMS wanting the source for the printer driver for the Xerox 9700 - nothing to do with Symbolics.

Re: An Exploration of SBCL Internals (2020)

#30

Post by linguae »

EdwardCoffin wrote: post #29
linguae wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, the free software movement came about due to Richard Stallman’s frustrations with Symbolics, one of the Lisp machine companies that came from the same MIT AI lab he worked in. It’s just that RMS chose to reimplement Unix (GNU) instead of creating a free Lisp operating system, though one could argue half-jokingly and half-seriously that GNU Emacs is that free Lisp OS.

I understood it came about due to RMS wanting the source for the printer driver for the Xerox 9700 - nothing to do with Symbolics.

The printer driver situation was RMS’s last straw, but he was already saddened by the demise of the sharing culture of the MIT AI lab once Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. were founded, and he spent a considerable amount of effort reimplementing features from Symbolics:

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html

Post reply on HN