21–30 of 97 posts
This is one of the most fun and informative programming posts I've seen on Hacker News recently. I also killed my wifi immediately after reading the article to play the game.
Apart from Clojure (which is not LISP, really), I haven't seen end-user applications written in LISP dialects (I don't think emacs is end-user software). Scheme (and its PLT dialect Racket) was in academia for so long that it literally got "friend-zoned" and has little (read "no") use in the industry. Then again, I expected to see more Common LISP around. Paul Graham really put it right, but I guess any leverage/adva…
I don't see why Clojure is not Lisp. The only major problem with it is its memory demand, which is a problem it you don't have RAM in abundance. But it's been the first Lisp widely deployable thanks to Java, and thus all the deserved hype around it.
The one big trouble in Scheme is the too-late standard module system. In absence of a standard, everybody created their own, so intercompiler portability is hard (although I'm not all that familiar, maybe I'm mistaken). Another problem is the name, as I can't say it without a blush here in Turkey :)
Apart from Clojure (which is not LISP, really), I haven't seen end-user applications written in LISP dialects (I don't think emacs is end-user software). Scheme (and its PLT dialect Racket) was in academia for so long that it literally got "friend-zoned" and has little (read "no") use in the industry. Then again, I expected to see more Common LISP around. Paul Graham really put it right, but I guess any leverage/adva…
If you are looking for end-user applications written in Lisp, there are quite a few. For example Opus Modus ( http://opusmodus.com/ )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7axvT4fkF4
It's a real end-user applications that has nothing to do with programming. The user does not see Lisp and does not need to know Lisp.
To see this error page without disconnecting from the internet, visit chrome://network-error/-106.
Then, if you haven't read the article you might not know that the dino crouches with the down arrow.
Thanks to the OP for the great article, and for the comments instructing on how we mere humans can play.
N.B. the dino game has sound for a score that is a multiple of 100, so it might not be appropriate to try during a meeting, or at least mute first
Regarding the code, its ok although there are some parts that are unnecessarily messy. Here[0], and in other parts you use labels in the middle the function. It is best to do in the outer level form. I like the rlabels of misc-extension[1] when using local functions but I understand most people would prefer not to add 'util' dependencies. Another thing in that function. The (let ((data (or ...)))) is unnecessary. You…
> Also if not using asdf, the quickload form should be
> wrapped in an eval-when. It will fail If I Try to
> compile the file (C-c C-k) on a fresh session.
Apart from Clojure (which is not LISP, really), I haven't seen end-user applications written in LISP dialects (I don't think emacs is end-user software). Scheme (and its PLT dialect Racket) was in academia for so long that it literally got "friend-zoned" and has little (read "no") use in the industry. Then again, I expected to see more Common LISP around. Paul Graham really put it right, but I guess any leverage/adva…
In another comment, @bitwize says No. AutoCAD is written in C++. It has a crude Lisp as an extension language, [...]
Same story for emacs. It's written in C and implements something called "emacs lisp". I'm not inclined to call it crude, but few would defend it if I did... :)
But emacs is special, it's more "extension" than not. That means, the elisp-language extensions that it ships with make up the majority of the "basic" functionality of emacs.
Apart from Clojure (which is not LISP, really), I haven't seen end-user applications written in LISP dialects (I don't think emacs is end-user software). Scheme (and its PLT dialect Racket) was in academia for so long that it literally got "friend-zoned" and has little (read "no") use in the industry. Then again, I expected to see more Common LISP around. Paul Graham really put it right, but I guess any leverage/adva…
And you say Scheme was friend-zoned by the industry. While I understand why this was, it's a shame: Scheme is a very nice language, and with several high quality implementations, some excellent FFI, and finally some good library support (CHICKEN is excellent here), not to mention Racket's deluge of features and libraries (not really a fan of it myself, and it's not scheme, but I'm willing to admit it's a good system, to say nothing of impressive), it's finally slowly reaching the point where it might be usable in an industrial environment. Although it's not there yet, you can definitely write useful things in it.
Apart from Clojure (which is not LISP, really), I haven't seen end-user applications written in LISP dialects (I don't think emacs is end-user software). Scheme (and its PLT dialect Racket) was in academia for so long that it literally got "friend-zoned" and has little (read "no") use in the industry. Then again, I expected to see more Common LISP around. Paul Graham really put it right, but I guess any leverage/adva…
Emacs is not written in lisp. In another comment, @bitwize says No. AutoCAD is written in C++. It has a crude Lisp as an extension language, [...] Same story for emacs. It's written in C and implements something called "emacs lisp". I'm not inclined to call it crude, but few would defend it if I did... :) But emacs is special, it's more "extension" than not. That means, the elisp-language extensions that it ships wit…
Many/most Lisp systems have a runtime written in C and/or assembler.
Apart from Clojure (which is not LISP, really), I haven't seen end-user applications written in LISP dialects (I don't think emacs is end-user software). Scheme (and its PLT dialect Racket) was in academia for so long that it literally got "friend-zoned" and has little (read "no") use in the industry. Then again, I expected to see more Common LISP around. Paul Graham really put it right, but I guess any leverage/adva…
If Common Lisp is a failure, how is it that there are multiple commercial offerings for it?[0][1]
I would take the continued presence of these commercial offerings as a sign of health in the Common Lisp ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emacs is not written in lisp. In another comment, @bitwize says No. AutoCAD is written in C++. It has a crude Lisp as an extension language, [...] Same story for emacs. It's written in C and implements something called "emacs lisp". I'm not inclined to call it crude, but few would defend it if I did... :) But emacs is special, it's more "extension" than not. That means, the elisp-language extensions that it ships wit…
GNU Emacs is written in C and Emacs Lisp. Much of the editor functionality is implemented in Emacs Lisp, while the Emacs Lisp runtime (plus some libs and some external tools) is written C. Many/most Lisp systems have a runtime written in C and/or assembler.