CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#2This looks cool enough but it would need a big community to really change the common lisp landscape (in my opinion). I wonder how the lazy sequence support stacks up to Clojure, Haskell, etc. support.
One difficulty with promoting a more modern layer to common lisp is that Clojure is already such a productive and practical language. I have written a few common lisp books, and remain a fan of the language, and an upgrade does sound good.
I am curious to hear the opinions of the heavy hitters in the common lisp world.
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#3Interesting, but for looping I think a better point of comparison is iterate:
https://common-lisp.net/project/iterate/
In my personal opinion, the iterate loops read better than the code samples of the main page.
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#4One of the things I don't like about Common Lisp is the unusual names. Just on the basis of the linked page, CL21 doesn't fix that.
Take princ #"Hello, ${name}\n". Why not just use print like the rest of the programming world. Okay, some languages use writeln, etc. But princ? Why not print?
A little further down, we see while-let1. Why the number? If you want to call it "Common Lisp in the 21st Century" you need to clean up the syntax.
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#5By the way, looking at the github there are 40 open issues 5 open pull requests and no changes to master for 6 months. I think this project may be dead, or at least on hold for the time being.
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#6Interesting, but for looping I think a better point of comparison is iterate: https://common-lisp.net/project/iterate/ In my personal opinion, the iterate loops read better than the code samples of the main page.
[deleted]
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#7One of the things I don't like about Common Lisp is the unusual names. Just on the basis of the linked page, CL21 doesn't fix that. Take princ #"Hello, ${name}\n". Why not just use print like the rest of the programming world. Okay, some languages use writeln, etc. But princ? Why not print? A little further down, we see while-let1. Why the number? If you want to call it "Common Lisp in the 21st Century" you need to c…
Honestly? Mostly because Lisp conventions predate "the rest of the programming world". As for while-let1, it's a while-let with just one variable binding (I guess I'd prefer them to stick with just while-let).
There's usually a very good reason behind all those "unusual names" of Common Lisp. I don't think that dumbing things up so that they look more similar to everything else in a language that is already different from anything else is the way to go.
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#8One of the things I don't like about Common Lisp is the unusual names. Just on the basis of the linked page, CL21 doesn't fix that. Take princ #"Hello, ${name}\n". Why not just use print like the rest of the programming world. Okay, some languages use writeln, etc. But princ? Why not print? A little further down, we see while-let1. Why the number? If you want to call it "Common Lisp in the 21st Century" you need to c…
Honestly? Mostly because Lisp conventions predate "the rest of the programming world". As for while-let1, it's a while-let with just one variable binding (I guess I'd prefer them to stick with just while-let). There's usually a very good reason behind all those "unusual names" of Common Lisp. I don't think that dumbing things up so that they look more similar to everything else in a language that is already different…
I do. There is a reason for the success of Ruby and Python, and why Elixir is dragging Erlang in to the present. It turns out you don't just have to write your language in the shape of the machine/vm but it can be a tool conformed to the mind of the programmer. "princ" is not easy to remember, read or associate to other things one already knows. The point of a project like this should not be to save old school programmers (who won't use it anyway) a few keystrokes, it is to throw away the cruft of decades of "a very good reason" decisions for something simpler and better thought out.
I really like the direction of this project, but I agree with the parent comment, it doesn't go far enough.
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#9Another effort along the same lines:
Re: CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp
#10Interesting, but for looping I think a better point of comparison is iterate: https://common-lisp.net/project/iterate/ In my personal opinion, the iterate loops read better than the code samples of the main page.
Looping is still under discussion, check Dan Lentz's comments on the issue: https://github.com/cl21/cl21/issues/18