4 ms·

What do you mean by that? A lot of people use racket, a lot of people use SBCL, which is indeed significantly faster. They are actually completely different sof

by _ph_ 4y ago

What do you mean by that? A lot of people use racket, a lot of people use SBCL, which is indeed significantly faster. They are actually completely different software for different purposes and very different strengths.

noloblo 4y ago
what are strengths of sbcl over racket? what are strengths of racket over sbcl? if sbcl raw speed > racket speed wouldn't most expert lispers by default choose sbcl? what purposes does racket uniquely serve not served by sbcl?
- _ph_ 4y ago
  > what are strengths of sbcl over racket? SBCL is a Common Lisp implementation, racket implements variants of Scheme. SBCL is natively compiled, creates standalone executables. > what are strengths of racket over sbcl? It implements various scheme dialects, the ability to integrate different languages in one image is unique. It offers an integrated enviroment with a lot of libraries included, that is why it is popular in academia. > if sbcl raw speed > racket speed wouldn't most expert lispers by default choose sbcl? First of all, they implement different programming languages, that means they are not competing directly with each other and are very different beasts as discribed above. Racket seems to be very popular in academia, while SBCL is more used for practical software development. At least that is the impression I have. > what purposes does racket uniquely serve not served by sbcl? I think I have answered that above.
  - lispm 4y ago
    > the ability to integrate different languages in one image is unique Somehow. It should be possible to load a C, Prolog and Python implementations into one sbcl image. The Symbolics Lisp Machine emulator I use comes with C, Pascal, Fortran, several Common Lisp variants, Lisp Machine Lisp in one image. Kalman Reti once gave a demo how to debug mixed Lisp and C code in a REPL on such a Lisp Machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4-YnLpLgtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4-YnLpLgtk
    - noloblo 4y ago
      why is there a need to integrate many different languages in one image? [ in racket/sbcl]
      - lispm 4y ago
        In Racket the 'language orientation' is a part of the philosophy and the language & implementation & infrastructure is especially and prominently developed to support that. This can for example be used in education. In SBCL it's just the case, that generally the Lisp language familiy is used for developing embedded languages: domain specific and general.
  - noloblo 4y ago
    is racket not compiled to a native binary like sbcl,c,cpp,haskell?
- wk_end 4y ago
  They're completely different languages. Common Lisp isn't Racket. Racket is "a Lisp", but it's not Common Lisp (or even Scheme, which it's much more closely based on). You're writing something like: If Java raw speed > TypeScript raw speed wouldn't most expert curly-bracers by default choose Java? Differences include all the differences different languages have: features (hygienic macros, continuations, conditions, CLOS, ...), libraries (standard or otherwise), tooling...

by _ph_ 4y ago

noloblo 4y ago

what are strengths of sbcl over racket? what are strengths of racket over sbcl? if sbcl raw speed > racket speed wouldn't most expert lispers by default choose sbcl? what purposes does racket uniquely serve not served by sbcl?

_ph_ 4y ago
> what are strengths of sbcl over racket? SBCL is a Common Lisp implementation, racket implements variants of Scheme. SBCL is natively compiled, creates standalone executables. > what are strengths of racket over sbcl? It implements various scheme dialects, the ability to integrate different languages in one image is unique. It offers an integrated enviroment with a lot of libraries included, that is why it is popular in academia. > if sbcl raw speed > racket speed wouldn't most expert lispers by default choose sbcl? First of all, they implement different programming languages, that means they are not competing directly with each other and are very different beasts as discribed above. Racket seems to be very popular in academia, while SBCL is more used for practical software development. At least that is the impression I have. > what purposes does racket uniquely serve not served by sbcl? I think I have answered that above.
- lispm 4y ago
  > the ability to integrate different languages in one image is unique Somehow. It should be possible to load a C, Prolog and Python implementations into one sbcl image. The Symbolics Lisp Machine emulator I use comes with C, Pascal, Fortran, several Common Lisp variants, Lisp Machine Lisp in one image. Kalman Reti once gave a demo how to debug mixed Lisp and C code in a REPL on such a Lisp Machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4-YnLpLgtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4-YnLpLgtk
  - noloblo 4y ago
    why is there a need to integrate many different languages in one image? [ in racket/sbcl]
    - lispm 4y ago
      In Racket the 'language orientation' is a part of the philosophy and the language & implementation & infrastructure is especially and prominently developed to support that. This can for example be used in education. In SBCL it's just the case, that generally the Lisp language familiy is used for developing embedded languages: domain specific and general.
- noloblo 4y ago
  is racket not compiled to a native binary like sbcl,c,cpp,haskell?
wk_end 4y ago
They're completely different languages. Common Lisp isn't Racket. Racket is "a Lisp", but it's not Common Lisp (or even Scheme, which it's much more closely based on). You're writing something like: If Java raw speed > TypeScript raw speed wouldn't most expert curly-bracers by default choose Java? Differences include all the differences different languages have: features (hygienic macros, continuations, conditions, CLOS, ...), libraries (standard or otherwise), tooling...