4 ms·

> in a backwards-compatible way. But it's too late now. You just contradicted yourself.

lisper 4y ago
No, that's not a contradiction. To add a canonical false value you would have to change the semantics of the language, which means you have to change the standard. In general changing standards is possible, but in the case of CL it is not possible for practical reasons: changing standards costs money and no one would fund such an effort. CL is moribund, not unlike Smalltalk, APL, and COBOL.
- ykonstant 4y ago
  >CL is moribund, not unlike Smalltalk, APL, and COBOL. If someone wants to do some hobby/small-scale but complex programming in LISP, what kind of dialect should they use? Scheme/Racket or something else?
  - lisper 4y ago
    Personally I do all my personal coding in CL but it's a matter of taste. Another word for "moribund" is "stable" and that can be a good thing. But it really is mostly personal preference. And you might want to add Clojure to your list of languages to consider. The reason I like CL is that I find it is a local optimum impedance match for my brain in language design space. But that is at least in part because I have been using it for 35 years so I am used to its quirks (of which there are many). But it also has lots of really nice features, some of which are still unique to CL and which I find indispensable to my coding style. Generic functions are at the top of that list, and a close second is the macro system.
    - baq 4y ago
      I'm afraid you're confusing 'stable' with 'stagnant'. (The dictionary suggests 'dying'... I won't go there ;))
      - lisper 4y ago
        CL is not stagnant. SBCL and Quicklisp are still active, and Franz is still a going concern.
  - QuesnayJr 4y ago
    As a programming language, CL isn't moribund. There are several high-quality Common Lisp implementations. There's just no real chance of there being a revision of the language standard.

No, that's not a contradiction. To add a canonical false value you would have to change the semantics of the language, which means you have to change the standard. In general changing standards is possible, but in the case of CL it is not possible for practical reasons: changing standards costs money and no one would fund such an effort. CL is moribund, not unlike Smalltalk, APL, and COBOL.

ykonstant 4y ago
>CL is moribund, not unlike Smalltalk, APL, and COBOL. If someone wants to do some hobby/small-scale but complex programming in LISP, what kind of dialect should they use? Scheme/Racket or something else?
- lisper 4y ago
  Personally I do all my personal coding in CL but it's a matter of taste. Another word for "moribund" is "stable" and that can be a good thing. But it really is mostly personal preference. And you might want to add Clojure to your list of languages to consider. The reason I like CL is that I find it is a local optimum impedance match for my brain in language design space. But that is at least in part because I have been using it for 35 years so I am used to its quirks (of which there are many). But it also has lots of really nice features, some of which are still unique to CL and which I find indispensable to my coding style. Generic functions are at the top of that list, and a close second is the macro system.
  - baq 4y ago
    I'm afraid you're confusing 'stable' with 'stagnant'. (The dictionary suggests 'dying'... I won't go there ;))
    - lisper 4y ago
      CL is not stagnant. SBCL and Quicklisp are still active, and Franz is still a going concern.
- QuesnayJr 4y ago
  As a programming language, CL isn't moribund. There are several high-quality Common Lisp implementations. There's just no real chance of there being a revision of the language standard.