4 ms·

I don't think this is a reasonable article. Among other things, he offhandedly dismisses Common Lisp. Common Lisp does have at least one implementation that is

by pnathan 15y ago

I don't think this is a reasonable article. Among other things, he offhandedly dismisses Common Lisp. Common Lisp does have at least one implementation that is pretty Mac oriented. Clozure I believe, but don't quote me on that. He is right that the JVM library set has helped Clojure. I hope to see a Common Lisp port to .NET one day. One thing this world doesn't need - IMO - is another Lisp trying to be an industrial standard. If Common Lisp by itself doesn't cut it, DEFMACRO your way to what would cut it. If it requires compiler-level modifications, start working on contributions to the best compiler in the area you are working in (I think SBCL is the premier CL implementation, and should be centralized on, but that's just my opinion). Please don't write another Lisp, helping to fragment the market even further. (this is my primary beef with Clojure, too. :-) )

sedachv 15y ago
Clozure (http://ccl.clozure.com/ http://ccl.clozure.com/) is good at being better than SBCL in some areas (like, its compiler is a lot simpler). But there's room for the current CL implementations. CLISP for example is the only Common Lisp implementation doing JIT compilation. ABCL deploys on the JVM. It would be nice to have a CL deploy to JavaScript. And really nice to have a new JITed implementation that takes ideas from LuaJIT. Don't forget the commercial CL implementations. Lispworks is pretty awesome. What's really needed is to treat Common Lisp as a platform like the JVM. And for that to happen the current Free Software system libraries (networking, I/O, threading, Quicklisp, ASDF, FFI) need to continue to be improved, and need to run well on all CL implementations.