3 ms·

> what common lisp lacked was a heavy sponsor from the big players in industry. Or academia, even. I believe CL can thrive even without sponsors, most of the n

> what common lisp lacked was a heavy sponsor from the big players in industry. Or academia, even. I believe CL can thrive even without sponsors, most of the new languages in the town don’t have sponsors. (Like Julia, Nim, Ruby, e.g.) > a ton of people that are more than willing to voice what they don't like about it. The CL community can ignore people that just whine about the ((parens)). What the CL community shouldn’t is constructive criticism from itself. (For the record, I use CL as my side-project language, and use Clojure as my main language.) > Just doesn't have folks also posting good blogs about it often. IMHO, the CL community is too small to have much. The percentage of people who blog about CL is quite high; but the denominator is too small.

taeric 7y ago
My doubts were meant as specifically against your points. CLOS is often lauded as one of the best object systems. To see it as one of the complaints feels odd. Cruft in the standard library? Examples would be good here. But, this is hard to get behind. Nobody would be really sad to see Java date leave. That said, many of us are happy we don't have to touch some code that is working fine with it. And this is next to a demand for a bigger standard library. Which will only lead to more cruft. Not sure what you mean about the compatibility layer. Care to expand? My point was if CL had the press of any of the alternatives to gave, that would put weigh the negatives you gave. Instead of chasing removal of stuff, marketing would make more of a difference.
- rauhl 7y ago
  > CLOS is often lauded as one of the best object systems. To see it as one of the complaints feels odd. CLOS is awesome, better than the rest. But there are some weird seems between types and classes. And in places CLOS doesn’t go far enough — e.g. it’d be nice to specialise methods based on element types.
  - taeric 7y ago
    But this criticism wants a new system. Not just fixing some areas. That sounds off. I'd be interested in seeing some of the extensions you have in mind. I've only dabbled in clos. And I have to confess structures fit my case way better.
lispm 7y ago
> new languages in the town don’t have sponsors. (Like Julia, Nim, Ruby, e.g.) I thought Julia was coming from MIT research (financed with various research money) and moved now to Julia Computing, Inc. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/why-amazon-disney-and-uber-are-courting-this-two-year-old-startup-julia-computing-viral-shah/articleshow/60169227.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/why-... The employees of Julia Computing, Inc. need to be paid somehow... ;-) Looks like they have a good start: https://juliacomputing.com/about-us https://juliacomputing.com/about-us

taeric 7y ago

My doubts were meant as specifically against your points. CLOS is often lauded as one of the best object systems. To see it as one of the complaints feels odd. Cruft in the standard library? Examples would be good here. But, this is hard to get behind. Nobody would be really sad to see Java date leave. That said, many of us are happy we don't have to touch some code that is working fine with it. And this is next to a demand for a bigger standard library. Which will only lead to more cruft. Not sure what you mean about the compatibility layer. Care to expand? My point was if CL had the press of any of the alternatives to gave, that would put weigh the negatives you gave. Instead of chasing removal of stuff, marketing would make more of a difference.

rauhl 7y ago
> CLOS is often lauded as one of the best object systems. To see it as one of the complaints feels odd. CLOS is awesome, better than the rest. But there are some weird seems between types and classes. And in places CLOS doesn’t go far enough — e.g. it’d be nice to specialise methods based on element types.
- taeric 7y ago
  But this criticism wants a new system. Not just fixing some areas. That sounds off. I'd be interested in seeing some of the extensions you have in mind. I've only dabbled in clos. And I have to confess structures fit my case way better.

lispm 7y ago

> new languages in the town don’t have sponsors. (Like Julia, Nim, Ruby, e.g.) I thought Julia was coming from MIT research (financed with various research money) and moved now to Julia Computing, Inc. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/why-amazon-disney-and-uber-are-courting-this-two-year-old-startup-julia-computing-viral-shah/articleshow/60169227.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/why-... The employees of Julia Computing, Inc. need to be paid somehow... ;-) Looks like they have a good start: https://juliacomputing.com/about-us https://juliacomputing.com/about-us