4 ms·

> (and honestly I'm not sure I'd want to coexist in a CL codebase with more than a few programmers) What are your thoughts here? I’ve found lisps to be my fav

> (and honestly I'm not sure I'd want to coexist in a CL codebase with more than a few programmers) What are your thoughts here? I’ve found lisps to be my favorite languages to read other people’s code in.

threatofrain 5y ago
Perhaps it's because of typing. Personally I find that structural insights on code from static analysis to be just as important if not more than local readability. I also generally find that it's the complexity of program strategy that impairs local readability more than syntax or style.
- reikonomusha 5y ago
  This may help: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton
- brabel 5y ago
  Common Lisp has type declarations and I think on a big code base, I would want to declare most if not all of my function types. And the types are not just for information: the compilers can and do optimise heavily if you ask for it with `(optimise 3)`! You can get nearly as fast as C.
  - reikonomusha 5y ago
    Without a library like Coalton, the type system built into Lisp is pretty limited. (It feels pretty similar to C's.) So you can't[1] declare types like "list of foo" or "function that takes any type and returns the same type". [1] There is something called a SATISFIES type which lets you turn any globally defined predicate function into a type, but I don't find that it's used widely in practice, because the compiler can't reason about it.
    - wiz21c 5y ago
      Not sure if separating the language from its available libraries is really helpful...
      - reikonomusha 5y ago
        It is, because libraries like Coalton don't give you an expressive type system "for free", you also have to agree to write your code in a certain way. As such, it's completely reasonable for Lispers to opt out of using such opinionated libraries, and instead using only what's provided by the standard. If you do use a library like Coalton, then you get a type system pretty close to Haskell's.
        threatofrain 5y ago
        Hey, do you use Coalton, and how mainstream would you say it is?
        gmfawcett 5y ago
        I'm fairly sure that their company created Coalton: https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/ https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/
        reikonomusha 5y ago
        It's pretty new and not yet considered mainstream. But it's under active development and is used for real commercial projects.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

threatofrain 5y ago

Perhaps it's because of typing. Personally I find that structural insights on code from static analysis to be just as important if not more than local readability. I also generally find that it's the complexity of program strategy that impairs local readability more than syntax or style.

reikonomusha 5y ago
This may help: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton
brabel 5y ago
Common Lisp has type declarations and I think on a big code base, I would want to declare most if not all of my function types. And the types are not just for information: the compilers can and do optimise heavily if you ask for it with `(optimise 3)`! You can get nearly as fast as C.
- reikonomusha 5y ago
  Without a library like Coalton, the type system built into Lisp is pretty limited. (It feels pretty similar to C's.) So you can't[1] declare types like "list of foo" or "function that takes any type and returns the same type". [1] There is something called a SATISFIES type which lets you turn any globally defined predicate function into a type, but I don't find that it's used widely in practice, because the compiler can't reason about it.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    Not sure if separating the language from its available libraries is really helpful...
    - reikonomusha 5y ago
      It is, because libraries like Coalton don't give you an expressive type system "for free", you also have to agree to write your code in a certain way. As such, it's completely reasonable for Lispers to opt out of using such opinionated libraries, and instead using only what's provided by the standard. If you do use a library like Coalton, then you get a type system pretty close to Haskell's.
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        Hey, do you use Coalton, and how mainstream would you say it is?
        gmfawcett 5y ago
        I'm fairly sure that their company created Coalton: https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/ https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/
        reikonomusha 5y ago
        It's pretty new and not yet considered mainstream. But it's under active development and is used for real commercial projects.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]