3 ms·

Compared to Python, Common Lisp hardly has any performance issues.

• mathisfun123 3y ago
  Okay well when pytorch, tensorflow, pandas, Django, flask, numpy, networks, script, xgboost, matplotlib, spacy, scrapy, selenium get ported to lisp, I'll consider switching (only consider though since the are probably at least another 20 python python packages that I couldn't do my job without).
  • svetlyak40wt 3y ago
    That is a typical consumerism: "Give me everything ready to use and then I'll use it." How about bringing some value to the community?
  • rwxrwxrwx 3y ago
    For the sake of anyone reading this thread who isn't in the know: many of these libraries are really written in C/C++ and have Python bindings.
    • mathisfun123 3y ago
      i said ported not implemented; the likelihood that any of those libraries sprout lisp bindings is about as likely as them being rewritten in lisp. so it's the same thing and the point is clear: i don't care about some zany runtime feature, i care about the ecosystem.
      • rwxrwxrwx 3y ago
        Stop moving the goalposts: your answer to a commenter who stated that Common Lisp was faster than Python (a fact) was a list of packages, many of which are (1) not even written in Python and (2) some of them actually do have Common Lisp bindings.