3 ms·
> Now that types and tools are advancing, static Lisps are feasible, and I love that. Haven't that been feasible for a pretty long time already? Judging by how
by diggan 2y ago
> Now that types and tools are advancing, static Lisps are feasible, and I love that.
Haven't that been feasible for a pretty long time already? Judging by how well-received (or not) they've been, it seems there isn't much demand for it. Things like clojure.spec and alike (compile-time + run-time typing) seems much more popular, but isn't static.
- nesarkvechnep 2y agoThere isn’t much demand for Lisps in general.
- stolen_biscuit 2y agoI think given the sheer amount of them that is demonstrably false
- cjaybo 2y agoMany have been created, but how many have significant usage?
- CyberDildonics 2y agoPeople make a lot as their side projects through the easy parsing, what software is being made with them? (besides the usual hacker news backend response)
- nesarkvechnep 2y agoHave you used one at work? I would surely love to but haven’t had the chance yet.
- sjamaan 2y agoClojure is fairly popular (I'm using it at work, though I'd prefer Scheme of course)
- sjamaan 2y agoApropos, this crossed my feedreader today: https://lispjobs.wordpress.com/2024/12/19/mid-senior-clojure-developers-akosweb-latam/ https://lispjobs.wordpress.com/2024/12/19/mid-senior-clojure...