4 ms·

In fairness, the standard Java library, the Unix /usr/bin and Common Lisp are not for the faint of heart either.

• lst 19y ago
  As you mention Common Lisp: The implementation I'm using is really small (and contains every single symbol of the CL specs). And: as I'm doing real-world apps in CL, I'm often very happy with some (little) more complexity to gain the required performance needed. Really, there is no real waste in Common Lisp, although this seems not to be a very popular opinion nowadays...
  • harshavr 19y ago
    which implementation is this?
    • lst 19y ago
      ECL. From a pure Lisp perspective, it's maybe not the really very best choice, but from an OS viewpoint, it's simply the most convenient for my tasks (Apple, Windows, Linux, free, really fast inline C FFI). Compressed its size can be as small as 1(!) MB on some OS.
  • pchristensen 19y ago
    After spending 5 years in nothing but .Net, the CL libraries seem rather sleek and streamlined to me! I was always a little confused when people complained about the bloat in CL.
• lastone 19y ago
  .Net is alot better. Its the industry standard.