3 ms·
Lisp has had some pretty decent standards for years - Common Lisp and Scheme. Both with stellar books about them. And at least two or three implementation for y
by mhd 4y ago
Lisp has had some pretty decent standards for years - Common Lisp and Scheme. Both with stellar books about them. And at least two or three implementation for your particular niche (well, at least once CMUCL wasn't the only game in the free CL territory).
It's quite hard to get into that territory with different ideas, you'd have to provide a rather good value add for that. Even newLisp[1] didn't, and that both had various implementations and a standard.
Clojure did, and not just because of the JVM (cf. ABCL/Kawa).
picoLisp just never really presented itself as being particularly unique for a niche. (IIRC also didn't run on Windows)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewLISP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewLISP
- zem 4y agolush is another failed lisp that really seemed like it should have gone somewhere. like picolisp and newlisp it was dynamically scoped, though, which i'm convinced limited the number of people willing to give it a good try.
- mark_l_watson 4y ago+1 I think you are correct. Common Lisp has most of the mindshare, followed closely by Clojure and the various Scheme implementations. It is also unfortunate that picolisp can be difficult to install on macOS and Windows.
- bmacho 4y agohttps://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ - Lisp .40% - Scheme .20% - Closure <.17%
- mark_l_watson 4y agoWow, Lisp ranks in the top 4/1000 of use? I didn't know we were that popular :-) Seriously though, I think I like Common Lisp so much just because I have been using it since about 1982 and I am just very used to it. For a lot of work, I will just use Python if there are one or more Python libraries that solve whatever problem I am working on with just a few lines added Python code that I need to write.