CL21: An experimental project redesigning Common Lisp

Post by chc » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 12:03 AM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #15

bachmeier wrote: post #4

One 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…

As odd as it may seem, I ended up prefering car/cdr over anything else (except when access to pattern matching and destructuring). I know first/rest, head/tail or even fst/snd are clearer names, but car/cdr ended up as symbols having precisely this meaning in LISP idioms (recursion over cons-cell based lists). My 1.5cents

Post by malisper » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 12:25 AM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #2

This 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 upgr…

  (defun integers ()
    "Returns a series of all of the integers."
    (declare (optimizable-series-function))
    (scan-range :from 1))

  (defun squares ()
    "Returns a series of all of the square numbers."
    (declare (optimizable-series-function))
    (map-fn t 
            (lambda (x) (* x x)) 
            (integers)))

  (defun sum-squares (n)
    "Returns the sum of the first N square numbers."
    (collect-sum (subseries (squares) 0 k)))

  (defun sum-squares (n)
    "Returns the sum of the first N square numbers."
    (loop for i from 1 to n
          for square = (* i i)
          sum square))

Post by pekk » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 12:53 AM UTC

arh68 wrote: post #20

I think this is an okay idea, but the comparison to Clojure is really lacking. Why build on CL when you can build on Clojure? I get the inter-operability, but when Multi-Threading and Multi-Processing is listed under Deferred , Clojure could provide so much of that for free. On Clojure, etc.

Post by pnathan » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 12:57 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #22

agumonkey wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As odd as it may seem, I ended up prefering car/cdr over anything else (except when access to pattern matching and destructuring). I know first/rest, head/tail or even fst/snd are clearer names, but car/cdr ended up as symbols having precisely this meaning in LISP idioms (recursion over cons-cell based lists). My 1.5cents

As a non-Lisper, I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that having "car" & "cdr" show up in the first few sections of a tutorial is not something that wins people over to Lisp. I don't mean that I don't understand it. I even know they come from assembler instruction names. And they still look weird to me and still have no meaning despite having read what the abbreviation expands to three or four times. You'd be…

Post by beeworker » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 1:25 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #22

agumonkey wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As odd as it may seem, I ended up prefering car/cdr over anything else (except when access to pattern matching and destructuring). I know first/rest, head/tail or even fst/snd are clearer names, but car/cdr ended up as symbols having precisely this meaning in LISP idioms (recursion over cons-cell based lists). My 1.5cents

As a non-Lisper, I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that having "car" & "cdr" show up in the first few sections of a tutorial is not something that wins people over to Lisp. I don't mean that I don't understand it. I even know they come from assembler instruction names. And they still look weird to me and still have no meaning despite having read what the abbreviation expands to three or four times. You'd be…