flavio81

22 ms·

181.
by flavio81 8y ago
There are many other languages that are far, fat better (in the overall sense) than go, with very fast compile times too.
182.
by flavio81 8y ago
> I was very disappointed in Clojure's debugging/interactive development story (and I've heard that from a lot of others). It feels more like using a typical scripting language compared to the traditional Lisp/Smallta
183.
by flavio81 8y ago
>People like component-based frameworks and modern JavaScript (and its supersets). Things are different now. Deal with it! Yo modern Javascripters: Stop building crappy, slow and/or unreliable SPAs. Maybe afterwards you could tell
184.
by flavio81 8y ago
>is the mindset of writing programs, which other dynamic languages typically don't get right. The idea of "growing" a program, and responding to change, is part of that mindset and once it's internalized a lot of the
185.
by flavio81 8y ago
>After 20 years of programming[1] 29 years here. I started in 1988. >I’ve gotten to a point in my life where an advanced type system... is absolutely mandatory for any language I’ll pick I used static type systems for most of my p
186.
by flavio81 8y ago
>In this sense, the various C++ language working groups are doing a remarkable job Really? Ask a big amount of C++ users... >I am still not convinced by the general "we don't need to upgrade the Common Lisp specification&quo
187.
by flavio81 8y ago
>The one that kills me, every time I look at CL, is the lack of a real Boolean type. Maybe I'm nuts, but that really isn't acceptable in this century. There is a boolean type in CL. You can declare variables as boolean and they
188.
by flavio81 8y ago
The empty list and NIL are the same, but you aren't forced to use lists for everything on Common Lisp. You have arrays etc etc.
189.
by flavio81 8y ago
>That a footgun can be occasionally be handled carefully does not erase the fact that it's a footgun. You know, there are languages that don't allow you to shoot yourself in the foot, because they don't allow any guns. I p
190.
by flavio81 8y ago
>While it sure is pretty, it's really jarring when you're working in CL. Where are the parens? How the heck does this parse? Note that the compiler will often tell you if the LOOP is wrongly written, at compile-time. It is ugly
191.
by flavio81 8y ago
>for me the "rope" was the ridiculous complexity of things like the "loop" macro. You are not forced to use it. I like the LOOP macro, but there are many alternatives, which you can easily load and use. >Instead of
192.
by flavio81 8y ago
>My personal favorite WTF from CL was the :around methods from CLOS. These allowed you to wrap a function with other functions, possibly from a completely different place in your code base, and handle any setup/teardown as needed. W
193.
by flavio81 8y ago
>That's the so-called Lisp Curse, Which, IMO, is mostly bollocks. See: CLOS, Quicklisp, Clack/Lack, ASDF, etc.
194.
by flavio81 8y ago
This is the best criticism of Clojure i've read. >That being said, between the two I would start any modern project in Clojure rather than CL. Access to Java, modern libraries for web development, and a much much larger pool of deve
195.
by flavio81 8y ago
>we're using Ring[0] at the backend >Ring is a Clojure web applications library inspired by Python's WSGI and Ruby's Rack. We have had this on the Common Lisp world for years, see "Clack" and "Lack"
196.
by flavio81 8y ago
>I use CCL because 1) I like the IDE and 2) its compiler is fast so you can always compile everything essentially for free. Just to add to the above, I like CCL because it gives nice compiler messages --sometimes it warns me about things
197.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Clojure has this advantage of Java Interop. So even if you didn't find native Clojure libraries, you can always find Java libraries. You can do exactly the same in Common Lisp, by using ABCL. I am a happy "customer". (ABC
198.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Was just thinking that if I could get a decent editor experience in VSCode, I'd love to play around with Common Lisp again. VSCode, for its main intended language (Js), totally pales in comparison to using Emacs (+SLIME and other t
199.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Git has huge mindshare >Emacs has low mindshare You don't seem to speak like a programmer.
200.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Now, there are perfectly valid other reasons to like static typing. I just always hear this one, especially in regards to Python, and it’s really the wrong way to look at it. >The extra code and constraints of static typing are liabi
201.
by flavio81 8y ago
> It's a bit of a shame that they don't have more widespread use in scientific computing In truth, they have. Lisp was the first functional language (or the first language that allowed that paradigm), and has been used a lot in
202.
by flavio81 8y ago
>It makes it fun to write JavaScript with its quirkiness and "dynamic" nature. And once you master it you become a ninja. Yes, a ninja of the "undefined is not a function" wars.
203.
by flavio81 8y ago
For practical (mature, usable in production) implementations i'd recommend: in C: ECL compiles Common Lisp down to C or allows it to be embedded in a C program Python: "Hy" allows to write Python with lisp syntax Javascript:
204.
by flavio81 8y ago
>template meta programming mixed with a lot of C macros... The author cites Lisp macros. C macros, or C++ template metaprogramming, are to Lisp Macros as a 19th century locomotive is to a state-of-the-art MagLev train. >I would actual
205.
by flavio81 8y ago
> very similar to the Common Lisp one, arguably with some improvements Quite the opposite. Common Lisp macros are totally unrestricted, they don't auto-qualify names with the package. Also, there are user-defined reader macros in CL
206.
by flavio81 8y ago
>I showed your project to my 12 year old son who has just started to learn programming (in JS no less!) It would be much better if he would start with Scratch, Processing, Smalltalk, or even Python. On JS he'll have to lose time cop
207.
by flavio81 8y ago
>One suggestion: checked again just now and SBCL is still not production-ready on Windows (for the understandable reason of insufficient volunteers); perhaps the recommendation for that platform should be changed to CCL? It only has a wa
208.
by flavio81 8y ago
There are two more libs on Cliki: https://www.cliki.net/email And note that CLiki does not cover all that it's out there.
209.
by flavio81 8y ago
Agree with all points above. I think the most important plus for CL is that CL is image-based, and that every important thing is already standardized, either on the ANSI standard, or de-facto via mature libraries.
210.
by flavio81 8y ago
>the gravely ill-advised microkernel fad What?! Linus, is that you?

More ›