flavio81

12 ms·

121.
by flavio81 7y ago
>but you need to tail the code for the hardware, which is niche Not really. You just need to declare the data types (Common Lisp supports type declarations) and tell the compiler you want the code to be fast, which reads just like that:
122.
by flavio81 7y ago
That "Hexstream" guy is a known mentally ill person who harasses other Lisp community members in various ways (github, twitter, his personal website, exposing other lispers' personal information, etc.) He is alone and doesn&#
123.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Elephant in the room: the hostility of the LISP community. Is there any language community with quite the reputation for unwelcoming unpleasantness, combined with the opposite - no counterbalancing reputation for welcoming friendliness?
124.
by flavio81 7y ago
>because: 1. Not typed Umm... the long section on "Common Lisp: The language" describing the features of the type system disagree with you. > 2. Absence of a proper package mechanism and package managers like cargo or npm Qu
125.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Runtimes for Clojure include JVM, JavaScript engines, .NET Except that they don't support the same Clojure language. ClojureScript is a success, and code written for the JVM Clojure won't necessarily run on ClojureCLR. Clojure
126.
by flavio81 7y ago
>When embarking on a project, you do not often know everywhere it will take you. If you start with a language that won't go some places, your project can't go there. If it needs to go there to succeed, you have doomed it at the
127.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I think there is something to the argument in the article about Lisp being too expressive and allowing developers to have too different styles making it difficult to read other peoples code. Rest assured this doesn't happen in Comm
128.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Now, we could talk about why the LISP community is fragmented (...) The problem is they confused DSL building with language building and so multiple different general purpose dialects proliferated. The Lisp community isn't fragment
129.
by flavio81 7y ago
This. We even have an almost de-facto standard library for easy parallelization (lparallel) and software transactional memory (stmx).
130.
by flavio81 7y ago
... and OCaml gives you most of the benefits of SML plus a reasonably sized ecosystem. Agree fully on your review of Go.
131.
by flavio81 7y ago
>honest question: is the following the way you do hashmaps in lisp: ? >vs >a = { color:'brown', name:'fred' } For such simple data you don't need to use a hashtable in Lisp. You just do: (:color "brown
132.
by flavio81 7y ago
>And in most circumstances it suffices to stop and restart. Only if your program is small and/or does trivial stuff. In ordinary languages, there's a significant loss of time to achieve the following, once a bug is found: - sto
133.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I don't have any particular experience with Lisp macros, but my experience with the closest equivalent in every language I've experienced them in is very different from your experience. Yes, because the way metaprogramming is
134.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Python is warty and creaky, but more mainstream than CL, so it's a fair comparison. How can it be a fair comparison, when Python isn't even a real functional language? (lambdas have been intentionally crippled, there is a sepa
135.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Common Lisp is about on a par with Python in what it has built in, inferior in its ecosystem about 20x+ faster than Python, too; speed in the same order of magnitude than C. >and for some modern stuff (threads, sockets) pretty amazin
136.
by flavio81 7y ago
Once in my life, I had a moment of profound clarity where the beauty and utility of Lisp just clicked in my brain somehow.
137.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I've built a control system for industrial electron accelerators using Common Lisp. Will you please add this info to the https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies ?
138.
by flavio81 7y ago
>Is it really as mind-blowing as people say when you "get it"? Yes!
139.
by flavio81 7y ago
>but was hoping for some "big picture" summary of what's worth using and learning from the entire ecosystem and when etc. Google "Common Lisp Cookbook", it has a chapter that will give you something of a "bi
140.
by flavio81 7y ago
> So they chose to make a language with less "book keeping and repetition" Yes, less repetition and more x, err := dostuff(); if err!=nil { return nil, err; } y, err := otherstuff(x); if err!=nil { return nil
141.
by flavio81 7y ago
Oops... I believe you, but, do you have some reference? I would assume this came after Lisp 1.5, right?
142.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I don't have the real story, but there was a lot of cross-pollination between smalltalk and lisp. Smalltalk was influenced by Lisp, and in turn, Smalltalk influenced the subsequent Lisp systems; that's where OOP support appear
143.
by flavio81 7y ago
We already have all of the above in the form of libraries. Common Lisp is extensible.
144.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I don't have high hopes for a Common Lisp implementation, as the ecosystem has become too fragmented and stagnant. I work on CL everyday and don't think it's fragmented. Stagnant, maybe, when comparing it to the mainstrea
145.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I sense some frustration about the language... what happened to make you so anti-Go? Why makes you think everybody should be uppity and approving about Golang? Some of us feel is a step in the wrong direction.
146.
by flavio81 7y ago
Thanks Kaz! I had the same question.
147.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I tend use Notepad++ I assume, then, that your file sizes are not so big. N++ is not good with big (>25% of your ram) file sizes, refusing to open them. Is R/tidyverse also limited on the size of the file it can handle? In my jo
148.
by flavio81 7y ago
>I do agree about homoiconicity. It's great for writing macros, and terrible for everything else. I don't know; i've written code in C, C++, C#, Java, Python, Ruby, Pascal, Delphi, Assembler x86, TCL, Javascript and Common
149.
by flavio81 7y ago
Common Lisp implementations often have no GIL, and, btw, are able to reach C speeds in certain cases.
150.
by flavio81 7y ago
>That section made me chuckle. Admirable if true Mostly true for very high level languages like Lisp/Scheme, or ML/OCaml/F#/Haskell, when faced against not-so-high-level languages like C, C++, Java. Against Racket, i

More ›