3 ms·
It’s more of a toolbox to build languages than a language. So every commonlisp codebase has a different flavor, and anachronistic semantics. No matter how goo
by fooker 3y ago
It’s more of a toolbox to build languages than a language.
So every commonlisp codebase has a different flavor, and anachronistic semantics.
No matter how good you are, this is difficult to deal with.
Sure, for config files or writing extensions for your favorite piece of software, you’d make the effort. But most software development is not in that category.
- beanjuiceII 3y agoIs it actually that good of a toolbox for building languages? I don't think people really use it much for that either
- fooker 3y agoIt's not like you'd often create a named language, it's more like accidentally defining a DSL along with libraries when working on something in a lisp with a decent macro system. As a result, all the client code looks like it's written in a bespoke language. This, while it's a lot of fun, creates write only code.