CL in the 21st Century is Clojure.
Inexplicable stack traces caused by mediocre tools?
[deleted]
Common Lisp in the 21st Century
51–60 of 60 posts
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#52CL in the 21st Century is Clojure.
You've probably never seriously programmed in CL. I'd say, the opposite, i.e. Clojure is in many ways backward compared to CL.
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#53Huh. These all seem like minor details. I think (shameless plug) that my FSet functional collections library helps modernize CL quite a bit more than this does. I've had a couple of people tell me that FSet has changed the way they program. That's a high compliment. I'd be the first to admit that FSet takes some getting used to, but if you're willing to put in the work to learn to think this way, there are substantia…
I assume that's:
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although this project renames functions, that isn't all that it does. Accomodating new users is very necessary for adoption of any language, library or project, especially by having reasonable defaults. All working professional programmers were once beginners. Of course, it's another argument that this project succeeds at any of these.
I wasn't criticizing the project, just responding to comments. And I appear to have said "new users" when I really meant "beginners". Experienced programmers as new users will stick if the language is appropriately expressive. Beginners will stick for different reasons and the only people who really seem to have a handle on beginner programmers from a professional standpoint is the PLT group of Racketeers. Pretty muc…
Where is this fear of Common Lisp from?
Just give them a fun book like Land of Lisp.
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#55Huh. These all seem like minor details. I think (shameless plug) that my FSet functional collections library helps modernize CL quite a bit more than this does. I've had a couple of people tell me that FSet has changed the way they program. That's a high compliment. I'd be the first to admit that FSet takes some getting used to, but if you're willing to put in the work to learn to think this way, there are substantia…
I assume that's: http://common-lisp.net/project/fset/
Yep!
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't criticizing the project, just responding to comments. And I appear to have said "new users" when I really meant "beginners". Experienced programmers as new users will stick if the language is appropriately expressive. Beginners will stick for different reasons and the only people who really seem to have a handle on beginner programmers from a professional standpoint is the PLT group of Racketeers. Pretty muc…
Where is this fear of Common Lisp from? Just give them a fun book like Land of Lisp.
As a beginning language Scheme and especially Racket are better designed languages. There's nothing of significance in Common Lisp that's better for a beginner and much in Scheme and Racket that is.
If I was going to move away from Scheme and Racket for vocational reasons but stay within the Lisp family I'd give strong consideration to eLisp since it touches on toolmaking. Clojure would be a second choice because it touches on imperative programming and library use.
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is this fear of Common Lisp from? Just give them a fun book like Land of Lisp.
As a beginning language Scheme and especially Racket are better designed languages. There's nothing of significance in Common Lisp that's better for a beginner and much in Scheme and Racket that is. If I was going to move away from Scheme and Racket for vocational reasons but stay within the Lisp family I'd give strong consideration to eLisp since it touches on toolmaking. Clojure would be a second choice because it…
I learned Scheme first. I still find that experience great.
But I moved then to Common Lisp and think that learning Common Lisp from the beginning is much better. Common Lisp is much better suited to write software than Scheme or even Racket. A good Common Lisp implementation has much better tools.
At the University we had a site license of Allegro CL from Franz, Inc.. Every student had access to it via the SUN cluster. That was a revelation to me. These tools were so much better to use and for learning.
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a beginning language Scheme and especially Racket are better designed languages. There's nothing of significance in Common Lisp that's better for a beginner and much in Scheme and Racket that is. If I was going to move away from Scheme and Racket for vocational reasons but stay within the Lisp family I'd give strong consideration to eLisp since it touches on toolmaking. Clojure would be a second choice because it…
I learned Scheme first. I still find that experience great. But I moved then to Common Lisp and think that learning Common Lisp from the beginning is much better. Common Lisp is much better suited to write software than Scheme or even Racket. A good Common Lisp implementation has much better tools. At the University we had a site license of Allegro CL from Franz, Inc.. Every student had access to it via the SUN clust…
Common Lisp is better than Scheme or Racket in the same sorts of ways that Clojure is better. It's a full on professional tool. But it doesn't have Felleisen's Student Languages or Htdp/universe out of the box to facilitate teaching like Racket.
I've never explored Franz/Allegro because CCL and SBCL etc. carry less baggage because of their FOSS pedigree...it's a bias more against demo/evaluation versions than closed source.
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does tar mean? ls? df? gunzip (something with guns?)? Every language old enough will assemble some naming problems. If you look at newer languages, even there naming is still the old problem. Clojure: What does fnext do different than nnext? Can you guess what rseq does? With larger software systems, you'll see that you will need to look up documentation quite often. On my old Lisp Machine there are 60000+ symbo…
> What does tar mean? ls? df? gunzip (something with guns?)? How are MORE bad examples an argument against what he says? If anything they reinforce his statement. Plus, the thing with "tar" and "ls" is that they've been tar and ls in all Unices for decades. If you learn "ls", and maybe "dir" if you want to use Windows, you're golden. Whereas every language seems to use its own names for "princ", "setf" etc, both befo…
By that logic, all the other languages are wrong, since CL predates them by decades. Getf has been the same in CL since, what, 1952 (much older than Unix).
Re: Common Lisp in the 21st Century
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I learned Scheme first. I still find that experience great. But I moved then to Common Lisp and think that learning Common Lisp from the beginning is much better. Common Lisp is much better suited to write software than Scheme or even Racket. A good Common Lisp implementation has much better tools. At the University we had a site license of Allegro CL from Franz, Inc.. Every student had access to it via the SUN clust…
Common Lisp is better than Scheme or Racket in the same sorts of ways that Clojure is better. It's a full on professional tool. But it doesn't have Felleisen's Student Languages or Htdp/universe out of the box to facilitate teaching like Racket. I've never explored Franz/Allegro because CCL and SBCL etc. carry less baggage because of their FOSS pedigree...it's a bias more against demo/evaluation versions than closed…
I doubt that either Racket or Clojure are comparable. Racket is not professional tool - it's an educational tool. Clojure is a more or less thin layer over Java.