13 ms·

For a more modern and up to date guide, Edi Weitz's "Common Lisp Recipes" is a great reference: https://www.amazon.com/Common-Lisp-Recipes-Problem-Solution-Appr

For a more modern and up to date guide, Edi Weitz's "Common Lisp Recipes" is a great reference: https://www.amazon.com/Common-Lisp-Recipes-Problem-Solution-Approach-ebook/dp/B01JFTONBS/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me= https://www.amazon.com/Common-Lisp-Recipes-Problem-Solution-... The more I use Common Lisp, the more disappointed I am that it hasn't become more popular. It really is higher level than Python, Ruby, or Perl but with nearly the performance of C and C++.

lispm 9y ago
http://www.apress.com/us/book/9781484211779 http://www.apress.com/us/book/9781484211779 For those interested buying a copy of Common Lisp Recipes: I think Edi said that for the author it is financially better to go via his page: http://weitz.de/cl-recipes/ http://weitz.de/cl-recipes/ But then, supporting a local bookstore might also be an option. Though I have to confess, I got my printed copy from Edi as a gift... :-)
nulldata 9y ago
> The more I use Common Lisp, the more disappointed I am that it hasn't become more popular. It really is higher level than Python, Ruby, or Perl but with nearly the performance of C and C++. It's nice to hear that I'm the only one. I, not too long ago, picked up Common Lisp and after a bit of "getting it", it suddenly became one of my favourite languages. And by "getting it", I'm not talking about the difficulties people normally refer to when talking about learning lisps, it was learning how to develop with it. There's a huge productivity boost in just the fact that your development process is as follows: boot REPL, run your program and then modify your program (while running). If anything is to break, or hasn't been implemented, the debugger just stops your program, let's you inspect your program state freely and you can update the code that failed and have another go. I'm normally very much to the strong, static typing side of languages. But to me, the Common Lisp experience is dynamic done right, it gives all the tools to handle the problems that arise from a dynamically typed language (even though Common Lisp is actually partially strongly typed) with is a great boon to productivity.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  You're definitely not the only one. I'm in the camp too. The language isn't perfect, but it's so much better than the popular dynamic ones that it's a shame it's still relatively obscure. And the development model of Common Lisp is what I strongly miss everywhere else.
  - eatonphil 9y ago
    By "development model" do you mean how the Common Lisp project is developed or how developers develop with Common Lisp?
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Aren't those essentially the same? But if there's a difference, then I think mostly of the latter - of development experience when working on Common Lisp code.
      - eatonphil 9y ago
        Yes I suppose they are. :) I meant to ask if it was something about the way the project made decisions or picked direction. But it's clear now what you meant.
- graphene 9y ago
  Honest question, how is this different from what you can do in e.g. python? The python interpreter supports reloading of modules and evaluation of expressions, is there functionality that CL has above and beyond this that makes it more powerful?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Can you recompile a function on a running program and have it pick up the new definition? Can you change a class at runtime, and then adjust already existing objects to match the new definition in a controlled way, without data loss? Can you forget to define a function, or initialize a variable, only to be allowed by the debugger to provide a new definition / value on the fly and continue execution? Those are some examples off the top of my head, but the general point is that unlike mainstream languages, Lisp languages evolved into environment for interactive construction and modification on a continuously running program, which is a bit different way of working than the regular write-compile-run cycle.
pjmlp 9y ago
If you want to be even more disappointed, have a look at Xerox PARC technical documentation about Interlisp-D, Smalltalk and Mesa/Cedar workstations.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  [*] But why can't we have nice things back?
  - jmnicolas 9y ago
    Because contrary to common belief, in capitalism it's not the best solution that wins, but the meanest shark.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      That I know. But forgetting the hardware for a bit, at least software (in particular open source) is still (fortunately) a quite economically inefficient space. Yet there isn't much work going on in bringing the good solutions from the old days back.
      - jmnicolas 9y ago
        I think it's not a matter of open source : there's no mean shark behind LISP but there's (a really mean) one behind C# (or Java or Swift etc).
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    I like to think that JVM, .NET languages and their tooling, and to certain extent Swift (with Playgrounds), are ways to have those things back, even if not 100% the same.
  - peatmoss 9y ago
    Like that discussion a while back about early competitors to CSS like DSSSL. Imagine if, instead of CSS/Javascript, we'd just had Scheme. In fact, imagine if instead of HTML/CSS/Javascript... we just had Scheme.
nerdponx 9y ago
As someone currently learning CL, I think part of the reason it doesn't have widr adoption is that there is a huge number of features. Consider a language like Python. Aggressive duck typing means consistent syntax for different data structures and types. Stuff "just works" without a deep understanding of how it works. CL is the opposite. What is the difference between setp, setf, defvar, and defparameter? Why is the documentation so technical and dense? What is a "form"? What are multiple return values and how do I get to them? Should I spend time learning the loop macro DSL? I find it similar to Haskell in this regard. The base level of knowledge to use the language is so high that you pretty much need a book, or a degree, to be able to get started. That's a huge barrier to entry.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Stuff "just works" without a deep understanding of how it works. > The base level of knowledge to use the language is so high that you pretty much need a book (...) to be able to get started. I wonder what that says about developers these days. Ever since I started 'till this very day, it was obvious for me that if you want to learn something, you go pick a book about it. Books aren't scary. They have one of the highest knowledge-transfer-to-time ratios out of any sources you could find; they easily beat videotutorials and text tutorials. Most programming books I've read are also quite pleasant and easy to follow (better than some novels I've read...). Are people scared of books these days? I mean, I accept that the power of a tool can be a limiting factor to adoption, but I'm deeply saddened by it. Learning and understanding things isn't hard. -- > CL is the opposite. What is the difference between setp, setf, defvar, and defparameter? Why is the documentation so technical and dense? What is a "form"? What are multiple return values and how do I get to them? Should I spend time learning the loop macro DSL? The answer to that is simple: go and read a book :). Practical Common Lisp is available on-line for free, and it's a current best introductionary book for CL. http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
  - oblio 9y ago
    I think most people learned programming by doing stuff, not by reading books. Basic, Bash, Perl, PHP, Javascript all agree with me...
pasbesoin 9y ago
That title is in O'Reilly's online Safari subscription library, for those who have an account. No affiliation -- just checked for myself.
flavio81 9y ago
Keep using Common Lisp and unite with us aliens on #lisp at freenode IRC!!

lispm 9y ago

http://www.apress.com/us/book/9781484211779 http://www.apress.com/us/book/9781484211779 For those interested buying a copy of Common Lisp Recipes: I think Edi said that for the author it is financially better to go via his page: http://weitz.de/cl-recipes/ http://weitz.de/cl-recipes/ But then, supporting a local bookstore might also be an option. Though I have to confess, I got my printed copy from Edi as a gift... :-)

nulldata 9y ago

> The more I use Common Lisp, the more disappointed I am that it hasn't become more popular. It really is higher level than Python, Ruby, or Perl but with nearly the performance of C and C++. It's nice to hear that I'm the only one. I, not too long ago, picked up Common Lisp and after a bit of "getting it", it suddenly became one of my favourite languages. And by "getting it", I'm not talking about the difficulties people normally refer to when talking about learning lisps, it was learning how to develop with it. There's a huge productivity boost in just the fact that your development process is as follows: boot REPL, run your program and then modify your program (while running). If anything is to break, or hasn't been implemented, the debugger just stops your program, let's you inspect your program state freely and you can update the code that failed and have another go. I'm normally very much to the strong, static typing side of languages. But to me, the Common Lisp experience is dynamic done right, it gives all the tools to handle the problems that arise from a dynamically typed language (even though Common Lisp is actually partially strongly typed) with is a great boon to productivity.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
You're definitely not the only one. I'm in the camp too. The language isn't perfect, but it's so much better than the popular dynamic ones that it's a shame it's still relatively obscure. And the development model of Common Lisp is what I strongly miss everywhere else.
- eatonphil 9y ago
  By "development model" do you mean how the Common Lisp project is developed or how developers develop with Common Lisp?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Aren't those essentially the same? But if there's a difference, then I think mostly of the latter - of development experience when working on Common Lisp code.
    - eatonphil 9y ago
      Yes I suppose they are. :) I meant to ask if it was something about the way the project made decisions or picked direction. But it's clear now what you meant.
graphene 9y ago
Honest question, how is this different from what you can do in e.g. python? The python interpreter supports reloading of modules and evaluation of expressions, is there functionality that CL has above and beyond this that makes it more powerful?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Can you recompile a function on a running program and have it pick up the new definition? Can you change a class at runtime, and then adjust already existing objects to match the new definition in a controlled way, without data loss? Can you forget to define a function, or initialize a variable, only to be allowed by the debugger to provide a new definition / value on the fly and continue execution? Those are some examples off the top of my head, but the general point is that unlike mainstream languages, Lisp languages evolved into environment for interactive construction and modification on a continuously running program, which is a bit different way of working than the regular write-compile-run cycle.

pjmlp 9y ago

If you want to be even more disappointed, have a look at Xerox PARC technical documentation about Interlisp-D, Smalltalk and Mesa/Cedar workstations.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
[*] But why can't we have nice things back?
- jmnicolas 9y ago
  Because contrary to common belief, in capitalism it's not the best solution that wins, but the meanest shark.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    That I know. But forgetting the hardware for a bit, at least software (in particular open source) is still (fortunately) a quite economically inefficient space. Yet there isn't much work going on in bringing the good solutions from the old days back.
    - jmnicolas 9y ago
      I think it's not a matter of open source : there's no mean shark behind LISP but there's (a really mean) one behind C# (or Java or Swift etc).
- pjmlp 9y ago
  I like to think that JVM, .NET languages and their tooling, and to certain extent Swift (with Playgrounds), are ways to have those things back, even if not 100% the same.
- peatmoss 9y ago
  Like that discussion a while back about early competitors to CSS like DSSSL. Imagine if, instead of CSS/Javascript, we'd just had Scheme. In fact, imagine if instead of HTML/CSS/Javascript... we just had Scheme.

nerdponx 9y ago

As someone currently learning CL, I think part of the reason it doesn't have widr adoption is that there is a huge number of features. Consider a language like Python. Aggressive duck typing means consistent syntax for different data structures and types. Stuff "just works" without a deep understanding of how it works. CL is the opposite. What is the difference between setp, setf, defvar, and defparameter? Why is the documentation so technical and dense? What is a "form"? What are multiple return values and how do I get to them? Should I spend time learning the loop macro DSL? I find it similar to Haskell in this regard. The base level of knowledge to use the language is so high that you pretty much need a book, or a degree, to be able to get started. That's a huge barrier to entry.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> Stuff "just works" without a deep understanding of how it works. > The base level of knowledge to use the language is so high that you pretty much need a book (...) to be able to get started. I wonder what that says about developers these days. Ever since I started 'till this very day, it was obvious for me that if you want to learn something, you go pick a book about it. Books aren't scary. They have one of the highest knowledge-transfer-to-time ratios out of any sources you could find; they easily beat videotutorials and text tutorials. Most programming books I've read are also quite pleasant and easy to follow (better than some novels I've read...). Are people scared of books these days? I mean, I accept that the power of a tool can be a limiting factor to adoption, but I'm deeply saddened by it. Learning and understanding things isn't hard. -- > CL is the opposite. What is the difference between setp, setf, defvar, and defparameter? Why is the documentation so technical and dense? What is a "form"? What are multiple return values and how do I get to them? Should I spend time learning the loop macro DSL? The answer to that is simple: go and read a book :). Practical Common Lisp is available on-line for free, and it's a current best introductionary book for CL. http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
- oblio 9y ago
  I think most people learned programming by doing stuff, not by reading books. Basic, Bash, Perl, PHP, Javascript all agree with me...

pasbesoin 9y ago

That title is in O'Reilly's online Safari subscription library, for those who have an account. No affiliation -- just checked for myself.

flavio81 9y ago

Keep using Common Lisp and unite with us aliens on #lisp at freenode IRC!!