3 ms·

Any particular reason against Common Lisp?

• eru 13y ago
  Common Lisp is ugly (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp-1_vs._Lisp-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp-1_vs._Lisp-2) and not particularly functional. There are a few reasons you might want to learn it nonetheless, but they don't apply to someone new to Lisp. (In case you ask: Common Lisp is a useful target, if you want to port programs from even older Lisps, like emacs' elisp.)
  • PuercoPop 13y ago
    Oh I see by Ugly you mean practical. Lisp is about Metaprogramming not referential transparency. On the otherhand once you start diving in the source code of Clojure you quickly find yourself looking at javaclasses ime. On the other hand CL has CLOS, an object system which puts others to shame. And reader macros to define your own syntax. See cl-annot to see the decorator syntax from python being ported to CL or how to give hashmaps Ruby syntax [1]. [1]: http://frank.kank.net/essays/hash.html http://frank.kank.net/essays/hash.html
    • eru 13y ago
      You can have CLOS in Racket, too. And Macros. What's practical about a Lisp-2?