4 ms·
I've written quite a lot of Clojure and some Racket, but never really settled down on CL aside from reading PCL and most of PAIP. In other words, I never coded
by nextos 4y ago
I've written quite a lot of Clojure and some Racket, but never really settled down on CL aside from reading PCL and most of PAIP.
In other words, I never coded something sufficiently big to understand the pros of CL.
Hence, I'm curious. What stuff I'm missing out in terms of language features and libraries?
- medo-bear 4y agofor me the following things stand out use common lisp (sbcl) if you want c-level performance use common lisp if you want to make optimizing compilers use common lisp if you want smalltalk type repl driven interactive development
- rscho 4y agoI'm not a compiler expert by any means, but I would've thought the more functional nature of racket to be a plus for writing compilers. Plus, there's the nanopass framework.
- lispm 4y agoThere is no shortage of Lisp compilers. The new Racket compiler was derived from the Chez Scheme compiler.
- medo-bear 4y agoohh ... almost forgot ... CLOS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System
- abudabi123 4y agoI'm curious to know what was lost to the Lisp users in the change on Apple's Newton device going from the early Ralph implementation in Lisp to cplusplus. On r/lisp there was a rant that included a reflection that things would be done in a third the time. There was an ask for $60M to apply Lisp to know a different world. Apple can easily afford a $180M experiment to see Ralph/Dylan implementation of iOS/macOS. If proved successful would the software platform leap how the hardware has done across multiple architectures? The ARM M series devices are a there and back again move given Apple Newton was on ARM and Apple invested which kept the idea alive.