Live data from Hacker News

Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

github.com

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure it does. I would even think that it tries to optimize such, as a recent check-in comment claims improvements of TCO.

A lisp without tail recursion would be a sad thing.

Common Lisp does not require implementations preform tail call optimization in general, or even in just the limited case of tail recursion.

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure it does. I would even think that it tries to optimize such, as a recent check-in comment claims improvements of TCO.

A lisp without tail recursion would be a sad thing.

It's not unusual for lisp interpreters to lack TCO. Also the (relative) popularity of dynamic binding in Common Lisp reduced the opportunities for TCO.

There's not really a consensus in the parts of the CL community that I'm familiar with on whether or not code relying on TCO is idiomatic or not.

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#23
Any benchmarks? I have a combinatorial enumeration comparison project where the .NET jit optimized my hot loops for F# to in some cases matching Rust performance. F# is inspired by OCaml, and for me F# runs twice as fast.

Scala got a face lift where indentation replaces syntax, a modern poetry look many of us can't live without. It is entirely practical to eliminate most parentheses from Lisp (I have written thousands of lines of Scheme this way, hands down my favorite code to read), but doing so will lead to a tribal swarm attack. It is also easy to train Common Lisp to lay off the caps, but any stock installation greets users with an old man shouting (GET OFF (MY LAWN)).

The idea of Lisp is pure genius. One wonders where we would be today if any Lisp took a more pragmatic attitude towards encouraging adoption.

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#24

I have recently blogged that AI and Common Lisp don't mix, but I've come to the opposite conclusion lately. AI evens the playing field between large teams and single developers. Now all the lone wolves in cl will be able to do large things, like a .net implementation or a yaml parser. I heard one guy say he was using AI to write a c complete in common lisp. I wonder if AI was used here or not.

Use python or whatever to build the llm, use lisp to explore and infer from the edges of what the llm has to offer. I don't do anything but lisp these days. Been waiting my whole career to be at this point. I'll never "write" a line of C# again. Just my taste and pref.

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#25
post #19

I have recently blogged that AI and Common Lisp don't mix, but I've come to the opposite conclusion lately. AI evens the playing field between large teams and single developers. Now all the lone wolves in cl will be able to do large things, like a .net implementation or a yaml parser. I heard one guy say he was using AI to write a c complete in common lisp. I wonder if AI was used here or not.

Had it not been for UNIX taking over the Lisp workstations market, followed by the first AI winter, people would be using LispTorch today, and there wouldn't have been such a waste coming up with endless ways to speed up Python, and efforts like Mojo wouldn't even be a thing.

Not really the "fault" of UNIX. The Lisp workstations would have been just as unpopular without it. They were insanely expensive and the idea of a workstation was ahead of its time, not to mention the other "unneeded" extras like GUIs, a mouse, and the photo editing and 3D modelling suites. It was plainly uneconomical.

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#26

Any benchmarks? I have a combinatorial enumeration comparison project where the .NET jit optimized my hot loops for F# to in some cases matching Rust performance. F# is inspired by OCaml, and for me F# runs twice as fast. Scala got a face lift where indentation replaces syntax, a modern poetry look many of us can't live without. It is entirely practical to eliminate most parentheses from Lisp (I have written thousand…

Have you tried Clojure?

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#27
post #25
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had it not been for UNIX taking over the Lisp workstations market, followed by the first AI winter, people would be using LispTorch today, and there wouldn't have been such a waste coming up with endless ways to speed up Python, and efforts like Mojo wouldn't even be a thing.

Not really the "fault" of UNIX. The Lisp workstations would have been just as unpopular without it. They were insanely expensive and the idea of a workstation was ahead of its time, not to mention the other "unneeded" extras like GUIs, a mouse, and the photo editing and 3D modelling suites. It was plainly uneconomical.

UNIX was only cheap because AT&T was forbidden to profit from it, had it not been the case, it would have been a proprietary closed source OS, exactly at similar price points.

The proof being the graphical UNIX workstations from Cray, SGI, Sun, NeXT that came later into the market.

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#29
post #27
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really the "fault" of UNIX. The Lisp workstations would have been just as unpopular without it. They were insanely expensive and the idea of a workstation was ahead of its time, not to mention the other "unneeded" extras like GUIs, a mouse, and the photo editing and 3D modelling suites. It was plainly uneconomical.

UNIX was only cheap because AT&T was forbidden to profit from it, had it not been the case, it would have been a proprietary closed source OS, exactly at similar price points. The proof being the graphical UNIX workstations from Cray, SGI, Sun, NeXT that came later into the market.

The dimension you're missing here is that most of the Lisp OSs were single-user (AFAIK initially all of them were but some gained multi-user support later) in a period when timeshare was king. Not to mention that the hardware itself cost multiple times more to manufacture.

Re: Dotcl: Common Lisp Implementation on .NET

#30

Any benchmarks? I have a combinatorial enumeration comparison project where the .NET jit optimized my hot loops for F# to in some cases matching Rust performance. F# is inspired by OCaml, and for me F# runs twice as fast. Scala got a face lift where indentation replaces syntax, a modern poetry look many of us can't live without. It is entirely practical to eliminate most parentheses from Lisp (I have written thousand…

I feel CLISP is pragmatic (it’s both low level and high level, multi purpose, has a formal specification, is a standard), but the world just changed too much around it.
Post reply on HN