3 ms·

If you start with Common Lisp it is not "pretty easy" to write a DSL that provides the constraints of Rust. You'll need to reimplement type checking and borrow

by roca 5y ago

If you start with Common Lisp it is not "pretty easy" to write a DSL that provides the constraints of Rust. You'll need to reimplement type checking and borrow checking at least, and as others pointed out, it's a ton of work to match the ergonomics of the Rust compiler. It's even more work to implement IDE support comparable to say rust-analyzer (which takes advantage of Rust type inference). (And of course this all assumes you're happy to jettison Rust performance features like absence of GC etc.) But say you do all that work. Congratulations, you now have an ecosystem of one person. To do anything in this language you need to reimplement a standard library plus third-party libraries, or at least write Rust-type-safe glue code to existing Common Lisp libraries. If someone wants to join your project, they'll need to learn your DSL first. When you write a bespoke DSL for a problem already solved by a programming language with a sizable community you're giving up a lot of network effects. That is something the OP completely failed to account for.

lisper 5y ago
> If you start with Common Lisp it is not "pretty easy" to write a DSL that provides the constraints of Rust. It's a lot easier than writing Rust. > you now have an ecosystem of one person Do you think it would have even been possible for one person to write Rust? Imagine if all the effort that went into writing Rust -- and Haskell and Swift and C-sharp and Python and Java and Javascript all the other myriad balkanized languages that have come along since CL was standardized -- had gone instead into improving CL. Do you really think we would be behind where we are today? Inventing a new and different syntax for every new language you design is a choice, not a technical necessity. The fact that languages have communities is survivorship bias. It's a bug, not a feature. In Common Lisp, it is possible for a single person to write something truly useful. In other languages, it is not. This is not to say that Lisp's lone-wolf culture is desirable; it's not. But that is NOT a reflection of any technical problem with Lisp. It's a political and cultural problem. And the first step to solving that problem is getting more people to recognize it for what it is.
- roca 5y ago
  > Do you think it would have even been possible for one person to write Rust? No, but I don't think it would be possible for someone to implement an S-expression Rust dialect on top of CL either. > Do you really think we would be behind where we are today? Hard to say. The counterfactual world where everyone decided to build on top of CL is so weird it's hard to say anything about it. Also, "improving CL" is an unclear term. For example if you want to replicate all the benefits of Rust by "improving CL" then that means, among other things, you need an implementation of "CL" that can compile your Rust-equivalent subset/superset of CL to bare metal with no runtime (including no GC). That implementation will take advantage of Rust ownership and other properties thus will not compile regular Lisp code. If you have a separate implementation for a special dialect of CL with distinct static and dynamic semantics from normal Lisp, it is only very loosely still "CL". > In Common Lisp, it is possible for a single person to write something truly useful. In other languages, it is not. This is an absurd overgeneralization that makes you sound like a nut.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > This is an absurd overgeneralization You're right. Allow me to rephrase: in CL it is easy to write a compiler for a new language because you don't have to write a parser or a back-end. It is so easy that it is a plausible task for one person to write such a compiler and make it truly useful, and indeed there are several extant examples. In other languages it is much harder.

by roca 5y ago

lisper 5y ago

> If you start with Common Lisp it is not "pretty easy" to write a DSL that provides the constraints of Rust. It's a lot easier than writing Rust. > you now have an ecosystem of one person Do you think it would have even been possible for one person to write Rust? Imagine if all the effort that went into writing Rust -- and Haskell and Swift and C-sharp and Python and Java and Javascript all the other myriad balkanized languages that have come along since CL was standardized -- had gone instead into improving CL. Do you really think we would be behind where we are today? Inventing a new and different syntax for every new language you design is a choice, not a technical necessity. The fact that languages have communities is survivorship bias. It's a bug, not a feature. In Common Lisp, it is possible for a single person to write something truly useful. In other languages, it is not. This is not to say that Lisp's lone-wolf culture is desirable; it's not. But that is NOT a reflection of any technical problem with Lisp. It's a political and cultural problem. And the first step to solving that problem is getting more people to recognize it for what it is.

roca 5y ago
> Do you think it would have even been possible for one person to write Rust? No, but I don't think it would be possible for someone to implement an S-expression Rust dialect on top of CL either. > Do you really think we would be behind where we are today? Hard to say. The counterfactual world where everyone decided to build on top of CL is so weird it's hard to say anything about it. Also, "improving CL" is an unclear term. For example if you want to replicate all the benefits of Rust by "improving CL" then that means, among other things, you need an implementation of "CL" that can compile your Rust-equivalent subset/superset of CL to bare metal with no runtime (including no GC). That implementation will take advantage of Rust ownership and other properties thus will not compile regular Lisp code. If you have a separate implementation for a special dialect of CL with distinct static and dynamic semantics from normal Lisp, it is only very loosely still "CL". > In Common Lisp, it is possible for a single person to write something truly useful. In other languages, it is not. This is an absurd overgeneralization that makes you sound like a nut.
- lisper 5y ago
  > This is an absurd overgeneralization You're right. Allow me to rephrase: in CL it is easy to write a compiler for a new language because you don't have to write a parser or a back-end. It is so easy that it is a plausible task for one person to write such a compiler and make it truly useful, and indeed there are several extant examples. In other languages it is much harder.