4 ms·
Having worked on one of the largest common lisp projects I have to say this is spot on. And monolithism it's not just visible on level of functions it's visible
by rusabd 11y ago
Having worked on one of the largest common lisp projects I have to say this is spot on. And monolithism it's not just visible on level of functions it's visible on higher level. Common lisp nudges you to write monolithic applications and it's crucial to keep many details in one head (in case of big project - many heads).
Also I think Clojure is scheme, so overall approach is different.
- catnaroek 11y agoNo, Clojure isn't Scheme. Scheme has hygienic macros and pattern matching on syntax, which in turn Racket's `syntax-parse` library makes even better. Clojure... well... has that ugly `defmacro` kludge. EDIT: I was being kind of unfair. Clojure also has kickass collections in its standard library, which Scheme doesn't have.
- qwertyuiop924 11y agoScheme is a lisp. Also, yeah, Common lisp probably would push for monolithism. Lisp Machine Lisp, upon which Common Lisp was based, was very much built upon The Right Thing, monolithic tradition of MIT, ITS, and all of the lisp machines.