Modern, functional Common Lisp: myths and best practices

Post by yellowapple » Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

tom-thistime wrote: post #31

This doesn't scratch my itch at all. I love Lisp but boring old Python has the libraries I need. EDIT: Based on a comment and downvote I suppose I didn't make my point clear above. I am saying that myths are not the only thing holding Lisp back. (I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. Big thank-you to people who are linking ways to get libraries in Lisp, especially Python libraries.) I care 10x as much about libraries as…

Post by yellowapple » Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 12:32 AM UTC

bibyte wrote: post #83

lispm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Common Lisp is actually compiled, not interpreted. If one compiles code or loads compiled code to something like SBCL and dumps an image, you can both run it directly from that image AND have still have the development tools included. Some Common Lisp implementations also have delivery tools which create applications without development tools. Some applications though include the development tools, because they…

Of course many implementations do compile to machine code but there are also a few that don't (clisp, ecl, abcl). It is really complicated to talk about languages that have multiple implementations. That is why I went with "interpreter". That was pretty lazy of me :). But you didn't say anything about the original question. Have you seen Common Lisp code deployed as an executable or as source code?

Post by mark_l_watson » Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

TurboHaskal wrote: post #64

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t used it myself, but EQL5 is attempting to make it possible to use ECL to iOS and Android apps

LispWorks also has offers an iOS/Android runtime, but no CAPI unfortunately.

Post by patrec » Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:53 AM UTC

vindarel wrote: post #78

patrec wrote: post #63

I hate the "lists of myths" (that aren't) genre. > Common Lisp does not have compile-time type checking. Nothing in the standard mentions compile time checking requirements and there is no useful de-facto standard that you (or tooling!) could seriously build upon either. I'd be suprised if python did not have better "compile-time type checking" for all practical purposes. Yes, SBCL gives much better type warnings at…

web development: kind of agree, but that didn't prevent me and two other colleagues to build a commercial website last year, for 1,5 month. It receives tens of thousands of visits a month and has a small admin panel for a three persons team. Job done, rent paid CLI utils: it's simple to use cl-readline. There are a couple libraries for ncurses. The Lem editor is a good example. mobile: nope. For the adventurous, see…

Post by mark_l_watson » Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

thrwer234231 wrote: post #51

mark_l_watson wrote: post #16

Thanks for writing that up. Common Lisp as a language and ecosystem is so huge that we all have our own view of what CL is and how to use it to build applications. I have been actively using CL since around 1982 for prototyping and also building applications and tools but I feel like I use a small part of what is available, mostly because I prefer to use what I am used to. I should should probably spend a little less…

> Common Lisp as a language and ecosystem is so huge This is not true IMO, when compared with the languages of today. Even if you include the numerous little details of MOP, the CL spec is nowhere near as confusing as say something like C++ 17.