Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Common Lisp

lisp-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Common Lisp

#41

Post by Jach »

cnbland wrote: post #11

I feel inspired to start with Lisp after being disappointed with the "open" source scene of 2021. I'd rather pay LispWorks a yearly fee and be left alone than dealing with unbalanced people in the Python space. The free Lisp implementations also look somewhat isolated from the ideological wars. However, a C interface is required. Is this one the recommended solution? Is it really portable? https://common-lisp.net/pro…

If you're interested in FFI, then yeah CFFI is the standard. The other comments addressed speed, I also wanted to point out https://github.com/rpav/cl-autowrap which is built on top of CFFI and can help get a wrapper up and running faster. After using autowrap's c-include you can then use CFFI basically like normal or some useful autowrap/plus-c's helper functions -- e.g. in one project, I have an SDL_Event (https://wiki.libsdl.org/SDL_Event) and to access event.key.keysym.scancode I have a helper function that's just (plus-c:c-ref event sdl2-ffi:sdl-event :key :keysym :scancode). Last year I wanted to try out using FMOD, and even though it's closed source and has a (to me) "interesting" API things worked easily: https://gist.github.com/Jach/dc2ec7b9402d0ec5836a935384cacdc... More work would be needed to make a nice wrapper, type things more fully, etc. but depending on the C library you might find someone's already done that (or made a start) and made it available from quicklisp.

Re: Common Lisp

#42

Post by [deleted] »

markus_zhang wrote: post #36
dathinab wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because thats what Hacker News is: A site which people ping with interesting and noteworthy things they stumble about and then other people decide if they think it's actually noteworthy until it's either on the front page or dropped out. Wikipedia and other web pages can be quite noteworthy. Through sure once everyone has seen it it's no longer note worthy. That's why some really noteworthy things pop up on HN again…

Well if the community is fine with wikipedia pages then so be it.

[deleted]

Re: Common Lisp

#43

Post by vindarel »

zetalyrae wrote: post #32

Hey, I made this! Feel free to ask anything. I released this in 2016. It was a significant undertaking and I burned out pretty hard afterwards. I was operating under a naive "if you build it, they will come" model whereby building a modern-looking website, the community would coalesce around it and contribute to the wiki etc. But my "rallying people behind a cause" skills were insufficient. One nice contribution: at…

Hi! When will you come back and write new useful libraries? Best,

Re: Common Lisp

#44

Post by Kototama »

zetalyrae wrote: post #32

Hey, I made this! Feel free to ask anything. I released this in 2016. It was a significant undertaking and I burned out pretty hard afterwards. I was operating under a naive "if you build it, they will come" model whereby building a modern-looking website, the community would coalesce around it and contribute to the wiki etc. But my "rallying people behind a cause" skills were insufficient. One nice contribution: at…

The website looks good! Do you still use Common Lisp? If not, what are the reasons?

Re: Common Lisp

#45

Post by lokedhs »

zerr wrote: post #31
Kototama wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It exists somehow with Elixir. It's not homoiconic and the interactive development experience is far from being as good as Common Lisp or even Clojure but it supports metaprogramming at an advanced level, is functional and dynamically typed.

Besides Algol-like syntax, LISP 2 was meant to be compiled, fast and statically typed.

Common Lisp is 2 out of those three. Implementations such as SBCL give you a lot of static typing too, even though it's optional.

Re: Common Lisp

#46

Post by exdsq »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #6

This looks like a rewrite of this web site? I don’t remember it looking so visually appealing. I would hope that every programmer has a “happy language” that they most enjoy using. CL is my happy language, both for personal projects and also since around 1982 I have probably been paid to use Common Lisp for about five of the last 39 years. This may sound sacrilegious, but in modern times I steer people newly interest…

How do you find Lisp work, out of interest? Especially for an experienced professional without commercial lisp experience?

Re: Common Lisp

#47

Post by zetalyrae »

Kototama wrote: post #44
zetalyrae wrote: post #32

Hey, I made this! Feel free to ask anything. I released this in 2016. It was a significant undertaking and I burned out pretty hard afterwards. I was operating under a naive "if you build it, they will come" model whereby building a modern-looking website, the community would coalesce around it and contribute to the wiki etc. But my "rallying people behind a cause" skills were insufficient. One nice contribution: at…

The website looks good! Do you still use Common Lisp? If not, what are the reasons?

I like Common Lisp but I no longer use it. I'm pretty much completely burned out on dynamic typing. It feels like building on sand. I want calmer programming, even if it's less powerful. At present I'm building a new language[0] with that goal in mind.

[0]: https://github.com/austral/austral

Re: Common Lisp

#49

Post by Zababa »

p4bl0 wrote: post #3
Zababa wrote: post #2

That's my personal opinion, but I think that programming language pages should have more information density. I also think that using your average "startup template" for Common Lisp is a bit weird. A good example of what I like might be the OCaml homepage https://lisp-lang.org/ , the Go homepage https://golang.org/ . The Haskell homepage has a REPL with a tutorial, which encourages you to play around with the languag…

> A good example of what I like might be the OCaml homepage https://lisp-lang.org/ That should be https://ocaml.org/ of course :).

Good catch, thanks!

Re: Common Lisp

#50

Post by Zababa »

andrewl wrote: post #13
Zababa wrote: post #2

That's my personal opinion, but I think that programming language pages should have more information density. I also think that using your average "startup template" for Common Lisp is a bit weird. A good example of what I like might be the OCaml homepage https://lisp-lang.org/ , the Go homepage https://golang.org/ . The Haskell homepage has a REPL with a tutorial, which encourages you to play around with the languag…

I agree that a language homepage should be information dense, and give the new user a clear overview without having to scroll. I think the Common Lisp homepage is an improvement over what I remember from years ago, and while it’s visually appealing it’s not as immediately useful as I’d like. Besides the examples Zababa offered, I’d say the home pages for Ruby, Julia, and Python are also good: https://www.ruby-lang.or…

They are all good examples too.
Post reply on HN