4 ms·

Which Lisp did you use? Common Lisp / SBCL?

by bmh100 12y ago

soup10 12y ago
Common Lisp, just seemed like any other programming language except that I was restricted to a functional style, and library support was super spotty. Admittedly though I didn't use it for very long.
- gumby 12y ago
  > Common Lisp, just seemed like any other programming language except that I was restricted to a functional style Lisp is often referred to as a "functional" language but that has always seemed odd to me. Side effects are first class, and some dialects (like scheme and common lisp) are quite procedural. In fact the "ultimate" papers cite Algol as an inspiration. It is in no way a functional language in the sense that that term is used with, say, Haskell, Erlang or Prolog. I do find Lisp the most expressive language I have ever used (and I wrote a LOT of code in it in the 1980s, 100s of KLoC over the years) but there are other languages I do use from time to time when their own particular strengths. For instance, string handling can be a bit roundabout in most Lisps. shrug.
- lispm 12y ago
  This is dubious, given that Common Lisp was the first standardized object-oriented language. See the Common Lisp Object System. Whatever you have used, it can't be Common Lisp, since Common Lisp is a multi-paradigm language with imperative, object-oriented and functional elements blended together. Consider this code snippet: (defparameter *persons* '((john 15) (maria 12) (agnes 20))) (defparameter *number-of-persons* 0) (defun count-persons (persons) (dolist (person persons) (incf *number-of-persons*)) (format t "~%The number of persons is ~a." *number-of-persons*)) What do we see: * mutable variables * procedures with side effects * imperative loop with DOTIMES * imperative setting of varibles * sequences of imperative statements Doesn't look like one is limited to 'functional style' in Common Lisp...

Which Lisp did you use? Common Lisp / SBCL?

by bmh100 12y ago

Which Lisp did you use? Common Lisp / SBCL?

Common Lisp, just seemed like any other programming language except that I was restricted to a functional style, and library support was super spotty. Admittedly though I didn't use it for very long.

gumby 12y ago
> Common Lisp, just seemed like any other programming language except that I was restricted to a functional style Lisp is often referred to as a "functional" language but that has always seemed odd to me. Side effects are first class, and some dialects (like scheme and common lisp) are quite procedural. In fact the "ultimate" papers cite Algol as an inspiration. It is in no way a functional language in the sense that that term is used with, say, Haskell, Erlang or Prolog. I do find Lisp the most expressive language I have ever used (and I wrote a LOT of code in it in the 1980s, 100s of KLoC over the years) but there are other languages I do use from time to time when their own particular strengths. For instance, string handling can be a bit roundabout in most Lisps. shrug.
lispm 12y ago
This is dubious, given that Common Lisp was the first standardized object-oriented language. See the Common Lisp Object System. Whatever you have used, it can't be Common Lisp, since Common Lisp is a multi-paradigm language with imperative, object-oriented and functional elements blended together. Consider this code snippet: (defparameter *persons* '((john 15) (maria 12) (agnes 20))) (defparameter *number-of-persons* 0) (defun count-persons (persons) (dolist (person persons) (incf *number-of-persons*)) (format t "~%The number of persons is ~a." *number-of-persons*)) What do we see: * mutable variables * procedures with side effects * imperative loop with DOTIMES * imperative setting of varibles * sequences of imperative statements Doesn't look like one is limited to 'functional style' in Common Lisp...