3 ms·
I think a lot of the features Julia julialang.org has, could be implemented just as easily in Common Lisp. Macros in general are much simpler to use to generate
by orbifold 12y ago
I think a lot of the features Julia julialang.org has, could be implemented just as easily in Common Lisp. Macros in general are much simpler to use to generate domain specific code than templates in C++ are, yet there are tons of very high effort numerical algorithms implemented in C++ and virtually none in Common Lisp.
- enupten 12y agoDid you see the wiki ?
- orbifold 12y agoYes, maybe it wasn't clear, my comment was meant as a reinforcement of your statement. The einstein-sum example is in line with what some C++ libraries can do, but I expect the common lisp implementation to be much simpler. Even more complex libraries like deal.II for pde-solving would probably benefit immensily from a domain specific language instead of a C++ interface.
- enupten 12y agoCan you elaborate on what you mean by "simpler" ? Drop me a mail if you like.
- scottlocklin 12y agoA CL with useful math facilities and a decent parallel model would be, like, a zillion times better than anything happening in Julia land. It's not like there isn't a market for something like this: the existence of Incanter and the past existence of XLispStat ought to have demonstrated this. Incanter, of course, will never have adequate numerics performance because the JVM is garbage for numerics, and probably always will be. As I said: Fateman demonstrated that this is possible using CMU-CL or Allegro or whatever it was ... decades ago. Sadly, it never happened.