6 ms·
CL is not really highly practical. The stdlib is not very coherent and lackluster in general (do I really need to import external code to split a string?), the
by shakow 5y ago
CL is not really highly practical. The stdlib is not very coherent and lackluster in general (do I really need to import external code to split a string?), the commonly accepted package manager is in an eternal beta limbo, the whole QL/ASDF/... thing is clumsy, parallel/concurrent libraries are very low-level, etc.
Now SBCL in itself is rock-solid and a fantastic experience when used with emacs, but the CL ecosystem is insufficient to qualify as “highly practical”.
IMHO, the most practical lispy language is Racket: tight language, excellent stdlib, easy to package and deploy, and a development experience that worse than CL but good enough.
- lispm 5y agoThe commercial Common Lisp I use, also has large amounts of extensions to CL. Including a function to split sequences/strings, parallel and concurrent extensions, ... ;-) It's actually the same commercial Common Lisp which Rich Hickey used years ago to write his first Lisp programs and where he developed his first ideas for Clojure.
- JasonFruit 5y agoAre you working under an NDA or something? Are you being threatened? Blink three times if you need help. Seriously, is there a reason you have to hint about what Lisp you use?
- ivanb 5y agoThere are about two of them anyway.
- lispm 5y agoI just didn't want it to sound like an advertizement. If you are interested, I'm using LispWorks <http://www.lispworks.com http://www.lispworks.com>. The other large commercial Common Lisp implementation is Allegro CL <https://franz.com/products/allegro-common-lisp/ https://franz.com/products/allegro-common-lisp/>.
- medo-bear 5y agoIs there a reason you can't ask politely?
- JasonFruit 5y agoBecause I thought it was funny, and I'm pretty sure lispm has enough sense of humor not to need a valiant protector today.