221–230 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flask and Django have the exact same functionality - I've already said that this thing you guys keep talking is just a matter catching exceptions. https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/2.3.x/debugging/ https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/settings/#debug
exceptions unwind the stack in all languages I know except in CL
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it look like in Python? In Lisp: CL-USER 43 > (+ 1 (foo 20)) Error: Undefined operator FOO in form (FOO 20). 1 (continue) Try invoking FOO again. 2 Return some values from the form (FOO 20). 3 Try invoking something other than FOO with the same arguments. 4 Set the symbol-function of FOO to another function. 5 Set the macro-function of FOO to another function. 6 (abort) Return to top loop level 0. Type :b fo…
Hmm, what advantage does Lisp offer here over Python? >>> 1 + foo(20) Traceback (most recent call last): File " ", line 1, in NameError: name 'foo' is not defined >>> def foo(a): ... return a + 21 File " ", line 2 return a + 21 ^ IndentationError: expected an indented block >>> def foo(a): ... return a + 21 ... >>> 1 + foo(20) 42 >>> Mind the hilarious indentation error, as I had not touched the old-school REPL in ag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that Common Lisp contains CLOS, which is one of the most advanced object-oriented systems even now. Most Lisps are not functional like Haskell is.
I read this Wikipedia article and some examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System Yes, the article calls it powerful, but aside from the ability to update classes and their functions at runtime - which, maybe I’m missing the utility of so I won’t say it’s useless although in my experience a SharedInstanceSingleton or LocalImmutableConfig or BatchedMonitoringEvent wouldn’t need it - it’s “just…
When you can't have something, it often becomes felt that you don't need something.
Wow, wasn't expecting to see my post on here! Eventually, I want to write a follow-up, but I'm still a beginner. Here's what I've liked about Common Lisp so far: * The condition system is neat and I've never used anything like it -- you can easily control code from afar with restarts * REPL-driven programming is handy in situations where you don't quite know what will happen and don't want to lose context -- for exam…
But REPL development is a mixed blessing. There are many situations where you want to start from a blank slate with no previous state.
LISP would be a more practical language if it included a trivial option to make that possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The repls you mention are not like lisp repls. You're being downvoted because your comment makes it sound like you've never programmed a lisp but have strong opinions nonetheless.
>you've never programmed a lisp but have strong opinions nonetheless i've written racket and clojure (and mathematica, which is a lisp). not multiple 10kloc but enough to understand what the big ideas are. claiming i just haven't written enough lisp is basically the logical fallacy of assuming the premise.
I see a lot of “coding” talk in the blog and comments from the author here, but few mentions as to what kind of software they’re building or what use cases they’re targeting. My hot take is that the reason functional programming never took off is that, while it certainly is fine for writing programs, most software these days is not “program running locally on my pc/server from the command line until it completes” and…
You also don't need to throw out all the good features of the other styles, as parts of functional programming are becoming more and more common in "regular" languages too. Rust uses functional patterns in many cases for instance.
And you can also write Lisp in an OO or imperative style if you want, it's no Haskell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This works in compiled Lisp code.
It works in code compiled from c++ too: define and associate a signal handler for sigkill, call a function whose symbol can't be runtime resolved by the linker, sigkill is sent and caught, define your function (in your asm dejure), patch the GOT to point from the original symbol to wherever the bytearray is with your asm, and voila. I'll say it again: what exactly do you think your magical lisp is doing that defies t…
Maybe try to relax, and learn some humility.
So am I although none of the features mentioned seem useful to me so far (perhaps I will change my mind once I become fluent). I just hope Lisp will make it easier to express my thought in code, minimizing/abstracting all the cruft/boilerplate. To me Lisp expressions seem the most natural way of expressing a thought.
As I primarily am interested in writing GUI apps I hope to master Clog or find/develop a good wrapper around some GUI toolkit.
Steel Bank Common Lisp is the workhorse which led me to build profitable software companies. I don't think I would be as productive without it. The repl driven workflow is amazing and the lisp images are rock solid and highly performant.
I think the times when your tech stacks mattered in the slightest are mostly behind us. Also: it's good you concocted some arcane shit that works like a charm, but now nobody - except the ones whose pay you express in number of zeroes - is touching it.