3 ms·

A better question: "What impressive programs are written in Lisp?". Or "Why isn't there a Squeak-like Lisp machine environment, where 'compatibility' doesn't h

by xrange 11y ago

A better question: "What impressive programs are written in Lisp?". Or "Why isn't there a Squeak-like Lisp machine environment, where 'compatibility' doesn't have to matter?". If a language is incredibly productive and programmable, why don't we already have a VPRI-like STEPS environment in 20,000 lines? http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf

vmorgulis 11y ago
There is OpenGenera (but more than 20k sloc): https://github.com/ynniv/opengenera https://github.com/ynniv/opengenera
delish 11y ago
> What impressive programs are written in Lisp? I'd only call this anecdote, but one or more benchmarks assert that cl-ppcre, common lisp's perl-compatible regex implementation, is faster than any other, include perl's. The larger question I'm intuiting from your post, "Why doesn't language power make a difference in practice?" I don't have an answer to.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Why doesn't language power make a difference in practice? Depends on your definition of "make a difference in practice". If you mean "make the language become one of the dominant ones", yeah, that doesn't seem to have happened. Either Lisp is less effective in the large than one would expect from its power, or it's less powerful in practice than people think, or power has almost no relation to language dominance. But if you mean "make a difference to the user", well, it lets the user more easily write the program that the user wants to write. In practice, that makes a difference - to that user.
  - ianmcgowan 11y ago
    This is covered in the article. You might say it's the central point of the article - lisp attracts "lone wolf" programmers who want to build perfect abstractions closely mapped to the real-world problem; as opposed to projects that require many man-years of effort run by MBA's who want fungible "resources" to do their tiny-bite-sized pieces according to spec. The philosophy is different.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
defgeneric 11y ago
State of the Common Lisp Ecosystem, 2015 http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015 http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015

by xrange 11y ago

vmorgulis 11y ago

There is OpenGenera (but more than 20k sloc): https://github.com/ynniv/opengenera https://github.com/ynniv/opengenera

delish 11y ago

> What impressive programs are written in Lisp? I'd only call this anecdote, but one or more benchmarks assert that cl-ppcre, common lisp's perl-compatible regex implementation, is faster than any other, include perl's. The larger question I'm intuiting from your post, "Why doesn't language power make a difference in practice?" I don't have an answer to.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> Why doesn't language power make a difference in practice? Depends on your definition of "make a difference in practice". If you mean "make the language become one of the dominant ones", yeah, that doesn't seem to have happened. Either Lisp is less effective in the large than one would expect from its power, or it's less powerful in practice than people think, or power has almost no relation to language dominance. But if you mean "make a difference to the user", well, it lets the user more easily write the program that the user wants to write. In practice, that makes a difference - to that user.
- ianmcgowan 11y ago
  This is covered in the article. You might say it's the central point of the article - lisp attracts "lone wolf" programmers who want to build perfect abstractions closely mapped to the real-world problem; as opposed to projects that require many man-years of effort run by MBA's who want fungible "resources" to do their tiny-bite-sized pieces according to spec. The philosophy is different.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

defgeneric 11y ago

State of the Common Lisp Ecosystem, 2015 http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015 http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015