4 ms·
Summary: "Because I'm used to something else." - executables: [1] - library: while there are certain libraries that are harder to set up in CL than Ruby/Python
by asolove 17y ago
Summary: "Because I'm used to something else."
- executables: [1]
- library: while there are certain libraries that are harder to set up in CL than Ruby/Python, the provided example of list and string functions is laughable. [2] [3]
[1] http://www.xach.com/lisp/buildapp/ http://www.xach.com/lisp/buildapp/
[2] http://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/strings.html#number http://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/strings.html#number
- jimbokun 17y agoBuildapp looks like a very nice solution to a long standing Common Lisp problem. When I was still reading comp.lang.lisp, seemed like every request for how to build an executable turned into a long diatribe about how "you really don't want to do that", "you're thinking in the UNIX way, not the Lisp way", yadda yadda yadda. Now, that question can be just be answered with the buildapp URL. Agreed that thinking Common Lisp lacks adequate ways to manipulate sequency things is quite funny. The main problem is the lack of definitive libraries for things that were not included in the standard 20 some years ago.