4 ms·

I don't want to ruin the language just so that it appeals to some people, it's already fine for me.

pcr910303 7y ago
> ruin the language just so that it appeals to some people May I ask why this can be considered ‘ruin’ing? These sort of changes will be useful for all CL users IMO. > it's already fine for me Maybe to you, but not for me or many, many people who went to Clojure apparently.
- a0-prw 7y ago
  I don't mean this in a hostile way, but seriously, just go, then. If Clojure is best for you, vaya con dios :)
  - pcr910303 7y ago
    Okay, maybe I should clarify. I’m not a Clojure-lover; I use CL as my side project language and I love CL. I was just suggesting a way that CL can be more appealing language so that CL can reach more adoption (as CL has it’s strengths that Clojure can’t follow along).
    - zeveb 7y ago
      Speaking as another Lisper, I am glad that you're sticking with Lisp, not moving to Clojure. … and maybe someday you can propose your own project, something like CL21!
oblio 7y ago
> I don't want to ruin the language just so that it appeals to some people, it's already fine for me. To an outsider his comments seem pretty reasonable. Why would they ruin Common Lisp?
- varjag 7y ago
  * There are larger incompatibilities between implementations in other popular languages, like C, C++ and Java. * It's easy to suggest designing an OO system better than CLOS. It's harder to point out any examples tho. * Remove unused functions, what? * "Make FOO standard" but a bunch of popular languages don't even have a spec, why is this an issue even?
  - zeveb 7y ago
    That other languages are worse than Lisp is no reason not to improve. I didn't read him as suggesting that CLOS be replaced, but that it be embraced. I have no idea what he meant about unused functions. My experience has been that when I think something in Common Lisp is pointless … I'm wrong. One of the great advantages of Lisp in the 90s was that it standardised things that other languages left undefined (indeed, this is still an advantage Common Lisp has over Scheme). It seems like a good idea to keep on expanding the standardised area, as we gain experience & understanding.
    - varjag 7y ago
      All good points but well.. this discussion appears to be about possible reasons people migrate to other languages. And I just can't see how addressing these (rather arbitrary) points would reverse it. Some people just don't like CL much, despite solid foundation and steady progress with community projects. That's okay, we all have one or another language we are not very fond of.
a0-prw 7y ago
That's exactly the way I feel about it :)

> ruin the language just so that it appeals to some people May I ask why this can be considered ‘ruin’ing? These sort of changes will be useful for all CL users IMO. > it's already fine for me Maybe to you, but not for me or many, many people who went to Clojure apparently.

a0-prw 7y ago
I don't mean this in a hostile way, but seriously, just go, then. If Clojure is best for you, vaya con dios :)
- pcr910303 7y ago
  Okay, maybe I should clarify. I’m not a Clojure-lover; I use CL as my side project language and I love CL. I was just suggesting a way that CL can be more appealing language so that CL can reach more adoption (as CL has it’s strengths that Clojure can’t follow along).
  - zeveb 7y ago
    Speaking as another Lisper, I am glad that you're sticking with Lisp, not moving to Clojure. … and maybe someday you can propose your own project, something like CL21!

oblio 7y ago

> I don't want to ruin the language just so that it appeals to some people, it's already fine for me. To an outsider his comments seem pretty reasonable. Why would they ruin Common Lisp?

varjag 7y ago
* There are larger incompatibilities between implementations in other popular languages, like C, C++ and Java. * It's easy to suggest designing an OO system better than CLOS. It's harder to point out any examples tho. * Remove unused functions, what? * "Make FOO standard" but a bunch of popular languages don't even have a spec, why is this an issue even?
- zeveb 7y ago
  That other languages are worse than Lisp is no reason not to improve. I didn't read him as suggesting that CLOS be replaced, but that it be embraced. I have no idea what he meant about unused functions. My experience has been that when I think something in Common Lisp is pointless … I'm wrong. One of the great advantages of Lisp in the 90s was that it standardised things that other languages left undefined (indeed, this is still an advantage Common Lisp has over Scheme). It seems like a good idea to keep on expanding the standardised area, as we gain experience & understanding.
  - varjag 7y ago
    All good points but well.. this discussion appears to be about possible reasons people migrate to other languages. And I just can't see how addressing these (rather arbitrary) points would reverse it. Some people just don't like CL much, despite solid foundation and steady progress with community projects. That's okay, we all have one or another language we are not very fond of.

a0-prw 7y ago

That's exactly the way I feel about it :)