(ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
common-lisp.net
(ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#2How is it different from Clojure?
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#3How is it different from Clojure?
It's different in that, being common lisp, it's actually useless. Might be fun to tinker, tho, with its CLOS and stuff.
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#4How is it different from Clojure?
Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, it's not Common Lisp. Scheme, Clojure, and Common Lisp are all very different beasts.
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#5A bit off topic, check out JScheme http://norvig.com/jscheme.html a Scheme implementation for the JVM.
Peter Norving wrote it initially as a way to learn Java in 1998. So he decided he'd write Scheme implementation in Java in couple of hours.(I swear, his Java code still looks better than mine today and he wrote it 11 years ago. :))
I see loads of code in JScheme that could have influenced Clojure to some degree.
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#6How is it different from Clojure?
It's several years older and implements the standardized language Common Lisp.
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#7How is it different from Clojure?
It's different in that, being common lisp, it's actually useless. Might be fun to tinker, tho, with its CLOS and stuff.
Useless how?
It has all the relevant constructs you'd need and more. And it runs on a JVM with access to Java lower level libraries.
Far from useless I'd say.
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's different in that, being common lisp, it's actually useless. Might be fun to tinker, tho, with its CLOS and stuff.
Useless how? It has all the relevant constructs you'd need and more. And it runs on a JVM with access to Java lower level libraries. Far from useless I'd say.
Clojure is two years old and already has more useful software being written in than CL.
CL is a failure, admit it.
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Useless how? It has all the relevant constructs you'd need and more. And it runs on a JVM with access to Java lower level libraries. Far from useless I'd say.
Clojure is two years old and already has more useful software being written in than CL. CL is a failure, admit it.
> already has more useful software being written in than CL.
Like what? Those crippled Java wrappers?
> CL is a failure, admit it.
You are a failure, admit it. Since you are not popular (I don't know who you are), you are useless. (Your broken logic in practice.)
Re: (ABCL) - Common Lisp on the JVM
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clojure is two years old and already has more useful software being written in than CL. CL is a failure, admit it.
> already has more useful software being written in than CL. Like what? Those crippled Java wrappers? > CL is a failure, admit it. You are a failure, admit it. Since you are not popular (I don't know who you are), you are useless. (Your broken logic in practice.)
Nope it isn't.
I've heard about CL, know a few things about it, and it's a failure nontheless.
Its problem isn't the unpopularity between Blub programmers; its problem is its unpopularity even between geeks. Even language geeks!