4 ms·
Common Lisp compiles to much more than just 'native'. Like C, LLVM, DLLs, ... and a has a bunch of exotic stuff like whole-program-to-C compilers, Common Lisp o
by lispm 8y ago
Common Lisp compiles to much more than just 'native'. Like C, LLVM, DLLs, ... and a has a bunch of exotic stuff like whole-program-to-C compilers, Common Lisp on the metal or Common Lisp on top of Prolog https://github.com/TeamSPoon/wam_common_lisp https://github.com/TeamSPoon/wam_common_lisp .
Common Lisp also has full language interpreters: these are implementations of Common Lisp which interpret s-expression level code - not byte code.
Common Lisp can easily dump images and make them executable. Saving and starting them is quick.
Common Lisp has implementations mostly written in Common Lisp - including the compiler and large parts of the runtime.
- vram22 8y agoIs this point of your parent commenter right? > - Not as homoiconic. Only lists are by default.
- lispm 8y agoI read that, too. But I'm not sure what he means by 'Only lists are by default'. If he means that only lists have a literal representation, then it would be slightly wrong - since Common Lisp has literal representations for various numbers, symbols, characters, strings, vectors, arrays, structures, pathnames, ... Plus the s-expression syntax is user-extensible - making it as 'homoiconic' as the user needs it.
- vram22 8y agoInteresting, thanks.
- didibus 8y agoI'm referring to the fact that Common Lisp does not have a map and set literal by default. It has a lot of homoiconic literals, and is still very homoiconic. And Common Lisp's reader and printer can be extended by the user to add them back in non standard ways. I still personally consider it as a slight cons against Clojure.