181–190 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked for a long time with emacs and slime, I'd have the opposite fear, to have to develop anything in lisp without them, like this is the case for LispWorks.
> like this is the case for LispWorks. I'm not sure I understand what you meant there, but you can use LispWorks with Emacs/Slime.
Is this set to music somewhere? I've been writing in lisp since using Lisp 1.5 in college; nearly 50 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I may ask, what references would you recommend to someone interested in something like Lisp, but who has never touched a functional language before?
Not OP, but Lisp isn’t really a functional language — it’s a usual language that also has some functional ideas inside. Mutation is common, don’t think Lisp will be a language like Haskell. For resources, I would recommend Practical Common Lisp[0] and PAIP[1]. For some modern development practices, the Common Lisp Cookbook[2] is great. [0]: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ [1]: https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp [2]…
The idea that "functional language" means "purity" is something that was retconned onto functional programming in the 90s decades after Lisp had defined functional programming to mean programming in terms of expressions that produce values.
I like the ML/Miranda/Haskell lineage of languages a lot, but it really bugs me when people in that camp lay claim to some notion of being a "better" functional language than the older Lisp family. (Lispers, while smug about many other things, are generally less smug about how "pure" their languages' approach to functional programming is.)
This is like arguing that Lagavulin isn't "really" whiskey because real whiskeys are made in the US from corn mash.
"Write in C": http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00259.html
Someone apparently made a YouTube video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ81MZUlrDo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! I'm sure that will give me a really solid look at what a full application looks like in a lisp.
More than one, if you look at it. Emacs is best viewed as a Emacs Lisp runtime that ships text editor as a default application ;). That's how it ends up with extensive outliner/productivity suite, e-mail/news client, file browser and a bunch of other applications within it, and a lot more of third-party one available in the built-in package manager.
https://ambrevar.xyz/emacs-everywhere/
https://ambrevar.xyz/emacs-eshell/Peter tech-reviewed the second edition of my Java AI book and made the comment that Java was half as good as Common Lisp for AI and that was probably good enough (we had both written Common Lisp books). He then went to Google and I had lunch with him; I was surprised that he was using Python. I like his poem in the article! A little off topic, but I retired (that is a bit of a joke) and at the age of 69, this year I…
https://nextjournal.com/kommen/gigasquids-libpython-clj-exam...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never used LispWorks, but I think they have their own GUI, support, built-in logic programming (Prolog) for starters. They also have IDE like tools that are probably ready to go outside the box. Emacs with Slime isn't for everyone (I find it to be a big initial hurdle). Although I'm sure this guy is an Uber emacs expert. Perhaps we can summon u/lispm for an answer here. I think he possibly works for LispWorks an…
Having worked for a long time with emacs and slime, I'd have the opposite fear, to have to develop anything in lisp without them, like this is the case for LispWorks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like this is the case for LispWorks. I'm not sure I understand what you meant there, but you can use LispWorks with Emacs/Slime.
Oh then it's interesting because I thought it required to use their IDE. With Emacs/Slime, is it as integrated as with sbcl for example?
In the genre of Lisp songs, I love “God wrote in Lisp”, by Julia Ecklar. Touted as a parody, but it actually has beautiful lyrics. https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/eternal-flame.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but Lisp isn’t really a functional language — it’s a usual language that also has some functional ideas inside. Mutation is common, don’t think Lisp will be a language like Haskell. For resources, I would recommend Practical Common Lisp[0] and PAIP[1]. For some modern development practices, the Common Lisp Cookbook[2] is great. [0]: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ [1]: https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp [2]…
> Lisp isn’t really a functional language — it’s a usual language that also has some functional ideas inside. The idea that "functional language" means "purity" is something that was retconned onto functional programming in the 90s decades after Lisp had defined functional programming to mean programming in terms of expressions that produce values. I like the ML/Miranda/Haskell lineage of languages a lot, but it real…