3 ms·

CLASP is for me the most exciting CL implementation right now. Compilation to the LLVM is a huge advantage. Sadly, it's a one-man thing. And CL seems quite sta

by nextos 9y ago

CLASP is for me the most exciting CL implementation right now. Compilation to the LLVM is a huge advantage. Sadly, it's a one-man thing. And CL seems quite stagnant. I wish one implementation triumphed over the others, and CL progressed beyond its ANSI standard. Clojure has many interesting things. So does Racket. The Lisp landscape is too fragmented. And thus libraries are a huge problem.

lispm 9y ago
> Compilation to the LLVM is a huge advantage Is it? Advantage over what? > And CL seems quite stagnant That's good then, since he can better catch up. > Sadly, it's a one-man thing. He can always reuse code from other implementations. Though I agree that it is too much work for a single person to create a quality implementation of Common Lisp. Problem seems to be that there is not enough interest in another implementation based on an un-explorered infrastructure (LLVM). > CL progressed beyond its ANSI standard It has. In implementations and libraries.
abrax3141 9y ago
But the whole idea, to your own point, is that there are lisps everywhere, compiling to everything and each having specialized additional features for the local needs, yet the ansi core remains intact, so everyone can use every one of those lisps (if they really are lisps...I’m looking at you, clojure!) [ED: I’m good with RSR5 too ... Jerry Sussman himself calls scheme a Lisp!]
flavio81 9y ago
>I wish one implementation triumphed over the others That would be terrible. Part of the nice things of CL is that you can choose the implementation according to what you need. For example ECL if you want to embed your lisp code with C code. ABCL if you really need to call lots of Java libs (or have Java code call your Lisp code easily), and so on. We're talking about mature, proven, tested implementations. If one implementation triumphed over others, over time we'd be in a position similar to, say, Python or Clojure, where there is only one or two implementations, besides some experimental implementations, and nothing else. Something that needs to be mentioned is that CL is truly standardized; if you have a code written in Common Lisp, chances are it will compile straight away on most of the implementations (ECL, ABCL, SBCL, etc), with no change needed. So having many implementations does not mean there is any kind of fragmentation in the language. >and CL progressed beyond its ANSI standard. CL is one of the most extensible languages out there, so it has already progressed way beyond the ANSI standard. The standard doesn't need modification to support new things. There are already many libraries giving you things that are not in the standard (like sockets or threads) but in a portable and standarized way.

by nextos 9y ago

lispm 9y ago

> Compilation to the LLVM is a huge advantage Is it? Advantage over what? > And CL seems quite stagnant That's good then, since he can better catch up. > Sadly, it's a one-man thing. He can always reuse code from other implementations. Though I agree that it is too much work for a single person to create a quality implementation of Common Lisp. Problem seems to be that there is not enough interest in another implementation based on an un-explorered infrastructure (LLVM). > CL progressed beyond its ANSI standard It has. In implementations and libraries.

abrax3141 9y ago

But the whole idea, to your own point, is that there are lisps everywhere, compiling to everything and each having specialized additional features for the local needs, yet the ansi core remains intact, so everyone can use every one of those lisps (if they really are lisps...I’m looking at you, clojure!) [ED: I’m good with RSR5 too ... Jerry Sussman himself calls scheme a Lisp!]

flavio81 9y ago

>I wish one implementation triumphed over the others That would be terrible. Part of the nice things of CL is that you can choose the implementation according to what you need. For example ECL if you want to embed your lisp code with C code. ABCL if you really need to call lots of Java libs (or have Java code call your Lisp code easily), and so on. We're talking about mature, proven, tested implementations. If one implementation triumphed over others, over time we'd be in a position similar to, say, Python or Clojure, where there is only one or two implementations, besides some experimental implementations, and nothing else. Something that needs to be mentioned is that CL is truly standardized; if you have a code written in Common Lisp, chances are it will compile straight away on most of the implementations (ECL, ABCL, SBCL, etc), with no change needed. So having many implementations does not mean there is any kind of fragmentation in the language. >and CL progressed beyond its ANSI standard. CL is one of the most extensible languages out there, so it has already progressed way beyond the ANSI standard. The standard doesn't need modification to support new things. There are already many libraries giving you things that are not in the standard (like sockets or threads) but in a portable and standarized way.