4 ms·

This request handler, in particular, produces HTML/CSS and Javascript in the same scope: https://bitbucket.org/tux_/rssparser.lisp/src/7a9f5ed45aca8b1734181be

by junke 10y ago

This request handler, in particular, produces HTML/CSS and Javascript in the same scope: https://bitbucket.org/tux_/rssparser.lisp/src/7a9f5ed45aca8b1734181be5d637b5bac745c47c/rssparser.lisp?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default#rssparser.lisp-97 https://bitbucket.org/tux_/rssparser.lisp/src/7a9f5ed45aca8b...

wtbob 10y ago
What blows my mind is how, after seeing that, some folks would want to program in anything other than Lisp. Code, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, all with a single uniform representation! Seriously, anyone who's not taken a look: take a look.
- nextos 10y ago
  Offtopic, I use Clojure these days. Is Common Lisp still worth considering?
  - rhabarba 10y ago
    Does your runtime still barf JVM stack traces? (attr.: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=42&cpage=2#comment-16767 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=42&cpage=2#comment-16767) Leaving this aside (after all, it might or might not be a matter of taste), it totally is. The Common Lisp ecosystem is pretty well alive, despite of the rise of Racket and Clojure. You should really give it a try one day. :-)
    - nextos 10y ago
      Common Lisp was the first Lisp I tried. But I found the library ecosystem a bit disappointing. This was more than a decade ago, though. No idea if Quicklisp has made everything more lively. Clojure is nice. I like the emphasis on functional programming, and a very clean set of basic data structures and operations on them. Plus lots of great libraries. Nonetheless, being on the JVM seems both a blessing and a curse. And I would love if it was a lot more performant. Clasp is tempting: https://drmeister.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/why-common-lisp-for-scientific-programming/ https://drmeister.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/why-common-lisp-f.... I wish concurrency was better.
      - rhabarba 10y ago
        Clasp seems to be much slower than SBCL (yet?). But yes, the amount of libraries has surely grown over the past few years, probably even too much: http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015 http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > Is Common Lisp still worth considering? I think so. The more I use it, the more I realise how well-put-together it really is. There are numerous places that annoyed me once, before I understood them, and which I now appreciate (pathnames, logical pathnames and Lisp-2 all jump immediately to mind, but there are a few others). The only thing I don't like is the upcasing, but by setting PRINT-CASE appropriately I rarely have to notice that. The ecosystem is actually quite wonderful these days. Quicklisp is a godsend — xach deserves an award. All in all, Lisp feels like a well-engineered solution. Not perfect, but really damn good — and better than anything else I've used.

by junke 10y ago

wtbob 10y ago

What blows my mind is how, after seeing that, some folks would want to program in anything other than Lisp. Code, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, all with a single uniform representation! Seriously, anyone who's not taken a look: take a look.

nextos 10y ago
Offtopic, I use Clojure these days. Is Common Lisp still worth considering?
- rhabarba 10y ago
  Does your runtime still barf JVM stack traces? (attr.: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=42&cpage=2#comment-16767 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=42&cpage=2#comment-16767) Leaving this aside (after all, it might or might not be a matter of taste), it totally is. The Common Lisp ecosystem is pretty well alive, despite of the rise of Racket and Clojure. You should really give it a try one day. :-)
  - nextos 10y ago
    Common Lisp was the first Lisp I tried. But I found the library ecosystem a bit disappointing. This was more than a decade ago, though. No idea if Quicklisp has made everything more lively. Clojure is nice. I like the emphasis on functional programming, and a very clean set of basic data structures and operations on them. Plus lots of great libraries. Nonetheless, being on the JVM seems both a blessing and a curse. And I would love if it was a lot more performant. Clasp is tempting: https://drmeister.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/why-common-lisp-for-scientific-programming/ https://drmeister.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/why-common-lisp-f.... I wish concurrency was better.
    - rhabarba 10y ago
      Clasp seems to be much slower than SBCL (yet?). But yes, the amount of libraries has surely grown over the past few years, probably even too much: http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015 http://eudoxia.me/article/common-lisp-sotu-2015
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Is Common Lisp still worth considering? I think so. The more I use it, the more I realise how well-put-together it really is. There are numerous places that annoyed me once, before I understood them, and which I now appreciate (pathnames, logical pathnames and Lisp-2 all jump immediately to mind, but there are a few others). The only thing I don't like is the upcasing, but by setting PRINT-CASE appropriately I rarely have to notice that. The ecosystem is actually quite wonderful these days. Quicklisp is a godsend — xach deserves an award. All in all, Lisp feels like a well-engineered solution. Not perfect, but really damn good — and better than anything else I've used.