6 ms·

> We argue that the resulting language definitionis too large for many short-term and medium-term potential applications (...) Don't think this passage from th

> We argue that the resulting language definitionis too large for many short-term and medium-term potential applications (...) Don't think this passage from the abstract stood the test of time. Common Lisp's standard library was large at the time, but is nowadays either comparable or small (or tiny!) compared to the standard libraries shipped with C++, Python, Java, Haskell. Software complexity skyrocketed since 1984.

PaulHoule 6y ago
I think GNU Common LISP was OK in 1994 if you had a 486 or other 32-bit computer. The std library of Python is remarkably similar to that of CL and the issues compiling it much like those in Python. JIT compilers can beat the 'microcoded' system to deal with cases like x = y + z where y and z are 'always' doubles so you can remove dynamism and even keep calm and carry on when the assumption is broken. If you ask 'whatever happened to CL?' it is Python, Erlang, Clojure, Java, Javascript and all ripped off most of the good ideas from CL.
- bjoli 6y ago
  I am not sure about most of the good ideas. I would say it is "enough of the good parts with syntax people can relate to". People are re-discovering lisp all the time. The nice things are still seemingly CL-exclusive; Conditions and restarts, proper macros (getting adopted in many languages NOW, about 30 years later), multiple dispatch OO. And first and foremost: proper interactive development. Using a python repl (or even a notebook) I have the feeling I get all the frustrating bits of the repl experience without any of the good parts. With very lackluster performance to that. I was kind of tired of not being impressed by new languages. Clojure and Erlang were the first ones in a very long time where it was the language (and not any additional libraries) that made me go "Wow. This is really cool". Now, I still write most of my code in guile scheme and occasionally ocaml, but not without at least glancing once or twice at Erlang.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    To provide perspective: "new languages" is understandable from CL POV but Erlang is 30 years old and Clojure is 15.

PaulHoule 6y ago

I think GNU Common LISP was OK in 1994 if you had a 486 or other 32-bit computer. The std library of Python is remarkably similar to that of CL and the issues compiling it much like those in Python. JIT compilers can beat the 'microcoded' system to deal with cases like x = y + z where y and z are 'always' doubles so you can remove dynamism and even keep calm and carry on when the assumption is broken. If you ask 'whatever happened to CL?' it is Python, Erlang, Clojure, Java, Javascript and all ripped off most of the good ideas from CL.

bjoli 6y ago
I am not sure about most of the good ideas. I would say it is "enough of the good parts with syntax people can relate to". People are re-discovering lisp all the time. The nice things are still seemingly CL-exclusive; Conditions and restarts, proper macros (getting adopted in many languages NOW, about 30 years later), multiple dispatch OO. And first and foremost: proper interactive development. Using a python repl (or even a notebook) I have the feeling I get all the frustrating bits of the repl experience without any of the good parts. With very lackluster performance to that. I was kind of tired of not being impressed by new languages. Clojure and Erlang were the first ones in a very long time where it was the language (and not any additional libraries) that made me go "Wow. This is really cool". Now, I still write most of my code in guile scheme and occasionally ocaml, but not without at least glancing once or twice at Erlang.
- fulafel 6y ago
  To provide perspective: "new languages" is understandable from CL POV but Erlang is 30 years old and Clojure is 15.