5 ms·

How does Common Lisp compares to Racket nowadays? I've seen a lot of activity but I can't decide which one to try out. I only have time for one of them ATM.

by edem 10y ago

aidenn0 10y ago
I think you will be happy with either one. It's targeted mainly toward people familiar with them, but here's a recent comparison: http://fare.livejournal.com/188429.html http://fare.livejournal.com/188429.html Note that a lot of what Faré likes about racket is somewhat intrinsic in there being one implementation, and a big part of why racket branded itself away from scheme (it was formerly PLT-Scheme). In lisp there are still a lot of very different implementations in use, so if you want to "grow down" you either have to be non-portable or do a lot more work. I love Common Lisp, so I will say "learn Common Lisp" but you'll probably be just as happy if you flip a coin (and I would recommend doing so rather than debating much as learning the "wrong" one now is probably better than learning the "right" one in the future).
spdegabrielle 10y ago
1. Racket is a multi-paradigm programming language. It has Java-style class/object system, a CLOS-like object system(swindle) and a prototype object system (like self and JavaScript). 2. The macro system is arguably the most sophisticated available. 3. Functionsl programming! including '(purely)Functional Data Structures'. 4. Parallelism (futures) 5. concurrency 6. Contracts 7. Typed Racket 8. Pattern matching 9. Modules 10. Units 12. Pattern Matching 13. Exception, continuations 14. Reflection 15. arguably the most sophisticated tools for creating full languages and DSLs 16. Datalog language (like in datomic) 17.an amazing IDE - it has a tool to debug macros! (but you can also use Emacs) 18. Typed Racket 19. Functional pictures (pict) 20. OpenGL 21 cross platform (win, mac, Unix, Linux) it will even run on a raspberry pi 22. Amazing community 23. Math library (and plot library) 24. Scribble/@-expressions (like markdown but much more powerful) 26. Quite a few libraries
- lispm 10y ago
  > Racket is a multi-paradigm programming language and its only implementation. 1. I use LispWorks, a multi-paradigm programming language (and its implementation) based on Common Lisp. It has CLOS and can use multiple other object-systems. 2. uses procedural macros 3. procedural functions, 3. concurrency, 6 assertions, 7 type declarations, 8 unification 9 systems, 10 conditions 11 reflection 12 arguably excellent tools for creating languages and dsls, 13 prolog 14 rule system 15 database interface 16 OpenGL 17 cross platform and will run on the raspberry pi 18 nice community 19 interface builder 20 delivery as shared libraries and applications, ... and a long list of other features... It's commercial and closed software, though.
- PuercoPop 10y ago
  The question was how do they compare. 90% of your list applies to CL as well. (CL has sheeple as its prototype based Object system). The statement about macros is more nuanced that you let on, language decisions like being a Lisp-1 w/o a symbol namespace (CL packages) make hygiene a necessity which in turn complicates writing macros. One thing I do like about racket is that it comes with support for writing pattern directed macros, that although possible to write in CL has no built in tools for it. Another point for racket is that it has support for macros with better error reporting (ej the elipsis). 15 is really the main selling point for racket. It is a Language creating toolbox (I forget the term they use for it). It's module system stands out in that regard compared to CL, which has read tables as a way to customize the reader. Racket's solution is more general and extensible in that regard. 16 is not true when compared to CL. The IDE of racket is way behind slime/sly, however it doesn't require setup. The other big difference is that CL is image based and suited for interactive development while Racket is batch oriented, 'python-style' of interactivity. If you come from Python you will think racket is interactive, but if you come from smalltalk you'll know what you are missing. As Aiden said, both are great languages, flip a coin.
- slmyers 10y ago
  > 17.an amazing IDE - it has a tool to debug macros! This may be true for an experienced user, but I've mainly used VS Code/Atom/Sublime etc, and I did not enjoy DrRacket -- I'm assuming that's what you're talking about. Some of the dropdown menus didn't render for me, and while this may sound stupid, I had the damnedest time figuring out that half my screen was a REPL and the other half a file.
  - peatmoss 10y ago
    How long ago did you try it / what platform are you running on? It was a few years ago now, but they rewrote the GUI libs to be native rather than whatever x-platform lib they used. DrRacket seemed to get... better then. I mostly use emacs, but was playing with paredit for DrRacket with emacs keybindings the other day and decided that I could get to like some of the other creature comforts of DrRacket.
peatmoss 10y ago
My personal, subjective, feeling is that the Racket offers an easier entry path (docs, libraries and library discovery, relative non-cruftiness, package management via raco, IDE, etc.). I also like that Racket is a little more biased toward FP than CL. I'm told the macro system is ahead of CL's, though I can't say I deeply grok macros. The Racket community always feels friendly and welcoming to beginners, which is something the CL community hasn't always been. I do like that CL has a standard with multiple implementations. That said, the standard feels old, and you can quickly run into libraries that were built with less-than-universal compatibility. Things like tail recursion in CL exist commonly in implementations, but not in the spec. I've tried to carve out a bit of hobby time for lisps over the past few years. I started with CL and fought with the tooling and I could see the power, but I never felt great about my abilities with it. I tried Clojure and periodically use it as a stand-in for Java, and in that sense it is good. But these days, I've been playing in Racket, and it feels like the lisp I wish I'd started with.
- peatmoss 10y ago
  One other item: the "enlightenment factor"—I'm really far from enlightenment, but I can see the crazy stuff people are doing in Racket with related, compatible languages, like Typed Racket and have a deep suspicion that Racket might carry me further on the path of enlightenment. That's down-the-road stuff for me though. Right now I'm enjoying small-time Racketeering.

How does Common Lisp compares to Racket nowadays? I've seen a lot of activity but I can't decide which one to try out. I only have time for one of them ATM.

by edem 10y ago

How does Common Lisp compares to Racket nowadays? I've seen a lot of activity but I can't decide which one to try out. I only have time for one of them ATM.

aidenn0 10y ago

I think you will be happy with either one. It's targeted mainly toward people familiar with them, but here's a recent comparison: http://fare.livejournal.com/188429.html http://fare.livejournal.com/188429.html Note that a lot of what Faré likes about racket is somewhat intrinsic in there being one implementation, and a big part of why racket branded itself away from scheme (it was formerly PLT-Scheme). In lisp there are still a lot of very different implementations in use, so if you want to "grow down" you either have to be non-portable or do a lot more work. I love Common Lisp, so I will say "learn Common Lisp" but you'll probably be just as happy if you flip a coin (and I would recommend doing so rather than debating much as learning the "wrong" one now is probably better than learning the "right" one in the future).

spdegabrielle 10y ago

1. Racket is a multi-paradigm programming language. It has Java-style class/object system, a CLOS-like object system(swindle) and a prototype object system (like self and JavaScript). 2. The macro system is arguably the most sophisticated available. 3. Functionsl programming! including '(purely)Functional Data Structures'. 4. Parallelism (futures) 5. concurrency 6. Contracts 7. Typed Racket 8. Pattern matching 9. Modules 10. Units 12. Pattern Matching 13. Exception, continuations 14. Reflection 15. arguably the most sophisticated tools for creating full languages and DSLs 16. Datalog language (like in datomic) 17.an amazing IDE - it has a tool to debug macros! (but you can also use Emacs) 18. Typed Racket 19. Functional pictures (pict) 20. OpenGL 21 cross platform (win, mac, Unix, Linux) it will even run on a raspberry pi 22. Amazing community 23. Math library (and plot library) 24. Scribble/@-expressions (like markdown but much more powerful) 26. Quite a few libraries

lispm 10y ago
> Racket is a multi-paradigm programming language and its only implementation. 1. I use LispWorks, a multi-paradigm programming language (and its implementation) based on Common Lisp. It has CLOS and can use multiple other object-systems. 2. uses procedural macros 3. procedural functions, 3. concurrency, 6 assertions, 7 type declarations, 8 unification 9 systems, 10 conditions 11 reflection 12 arguably excellent tools for creating languages and dsls, 13 prolog 14 rule system 15 database interface 16 OpenGL 17 cross platform and will run on the raspberry pi 18 nice community 19 interface builder 20 delivery as shared libraries and applications, ... and a long list of other features... It's commercial and closed software, though.
PuercoPop 10y ago
The question was how do they compare. 90% of your list applies to CL as well. (CL has sheeple as its prototype based Object system). The statement about macros is more nuanced that you let on, language decisions like being a Lisp-1 w/o a symbol namespace (CL packages) make hygiene a necessity which in turn complicates writing macros. One thing I do like about racket is that it comes with support for writing pattern directed macros, that although possible to write in CL has no built in tools for it. Another point for racket is that it has support for macros with better error reporting (ej the elipsis). 15 is really the main selling point for racket. It is a Language creating toolbox (I forget the term they use for it). It's module system stands out in that regard compared to CL, which has read tables as a way to customize the reader. Racket's solution is more general and extensible in that regard. 16 is not true when compared to CL. The IDE of racket is way behind slime/sly, however it doesn't require setup. The other big difference is that CL is image based and suited for interactive development while Racket is batch oriented, 'python-style' of interactivity. If you come from Python you will think racket is interactive, but if you come from smalltalk you'll know what you are missing. As Aiden said, both are great languages, flip a coin.
slmyers 10y ago
> 17.an amazing IDE - it has a tool to debug macros! This may be true for an experienced user, but I've mainly used VS Code/Atom/Sublime etc, and I did not enjoy DrRacket -- I'm assuming that's what you're talking about. Some of the dropdown menus didn't render for me, and while this may sound stupid, I had the damnedest time figuring out that half my screen was a REPL and the other half a file.
- peatmoss 10y ago
  How long ago did you try it / what platform are you running on? It was a few years ago now, but they rewrote the GUI libs to be native rather than whatever x-platform lib they used. DrRacket seemed to get... better then. I mostly use emacs, but was playing with paredit for DrRacket with emacs keybindings the other day and decided that I could get to like some of the other creature comforts of DrRacket.

peatmoss 10y ago

My personal, subjective, feeling is that the Racket offers an easier entry path (docs, libraries and library discovery, relative non-cruftiness, package management via raco, IDE, etc.). I also like that Racket is a little more biased toward FP than CL. I'm told the macro system is ahead of CL's, though I can't say I deeply grok macros. The Racket community always feels friendly and welcoming to beginners, which is something the CL community hasn't always been. I do like that CL has a standard with multiple implementations. That said, the standard feels old, and you can quickly run into libraries that were built with less-than-universal compatibility. Things like tail recursion in CL exist commonly in implementations, but not in the spec. I've tried to carve out a bit of hobby time for lisps over the past few years. I started with CL and fought with the tooling and I could see the power, but I never felt great about my abilities with it. I tried Clojure and periodically use it as a stand-in for Java, and in that sense it is good. But these days, I've been playing in Racket, and it feels like the lisp I wish I'd started with.

peatmoss 10y ago
One other item: the "enlightenment factor"—I'm really far from enlightenment, but I can see the crazy stuff people are doing in Racket with related, compatible languages, like Typed Racket and have a deep suspicion that Racket might carry me further on the path of enlightenment. That's down-the-road stuff for me though. Right now I'm enjoying small-time Racketeering.