flavio81

27 ms·

241.
by flavio81 8y ago
DrMeister for President!! (of the Land of Lisp -- est. 1959)
242.
by flavio81 8y ago
Allright, let's take some list of what can be understood for "mainstream" languages (because, according to other criteria, Lisp is mainstream too.) TIOBE index top 10: Java, C, C++, Python, C#, Visual Basic.NET, PHP, Javascri
243.
by flavio81 8y ago
>At least optional typing and macros are not considered to be universal benefits for programming. That's just your opinion. >Having a ton of features has been proven in many occasions to be counterproductive. Paradox of choice, h
244.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Just the macros - my goodness - in Common Lisp you can write programs that write programs!! ... and at runtime OR compile-time (your choice!) ... and by using plain, simple Common Lisp; no special, cumbersome AST-transformation librarie
245.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Also, languages are a lot more similar to each other than they used to be, in terms of expressiveness and power. Lisp was a “lightsaber” to the “stones” of the 80’s, now it’s at most a slightly more powerful “machine-gun”, at best. Plea
246.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Type declarations in Common Lisp are unsafe. Violating a declaration at runtime is UB. What SBCL is doing to Common Lisp is similar to what C compiler vendors did to C. In order to win at benchmarks, C compiler vendors started to use UB
247.
by flavio81 8y ago
>You quoted two companies using Lisp when there are millions of Java devs. So what? I was a Java dev myself. What does this mean? There are even more millions of Javascript users. What does this mean, really? >ABCL, FRANZ, ALLEGRO, SB
248.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Beating Node and Ruby in terms of speed is also a big non-argument, with so many attractive programming languages to choose from that are both fast It beats the majority of programming languages for speed, except for languages known f
249.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Any good implementations if common lisp on Windows? SBCL works OK on windows, i've used it a lot there. CCL works perfectly. ABCL should work just fine. CLISP works perfectly. LispWorks and Allegro CL should work perfectly.
250.
by flavio81 8y ago
>Can Portacle be used without Emacs? Does it integrate with Sublime Text, Atom or Vim? For Lisp development, Emacs is superior. There's also SLIMV for VIM, giving the same features.
251.
by flavio81 8y ago
>What confused me a lot is that nobody seems to give an example on how to build a binary out of a Lisp program/make it runnable from command-line. This is covered on the documentation of CCL and CLISP. You only need one (1) statemen
252.
by flavio81 8y ago
>I am heavily invested in Common Lisp. And you're my hero. For having the big courage to write a completely new CL implementation, and attempting what wasn't attempted before: LLVM output, great C++ interoperability. Even more,
253.
by flavio81 8y ago
... or STMX, which provides software transactional memory on Common Lisp in an ultra-easy-to-use way.
254.
by flavio81 8y ago
>3.) the lisp ecosystem is fractured into too many lisps like SBCL, Clojure, Racket, Allegro, Franz, Picolisp, ABCL, Shen...etc, so some confusion amongst those that are new You are mixing things into that list. Common Lisp, Racket, Cloj
255.
by flavio81 8y ago
>I sometimes wonder why Lisp has not been more popular in the technology industry. Is it the lack of sufficient marketing? In the late 70s, cheap computers (IMSAI, Altair) were almost unable to run Lisp for useful purposes. Too little me
256.
by flavio81 8y ago
They are entirely different languages altogether, the only thing in common is the use of s-expressions and the homoiconoicity.
257.
by flavio81 9y ago
you should take a good look at CLOS, you'll be colored rainbow-happy instead.
258.
by flavio81 9y ago
It seems they want cheap code monkeys. At least from Pike's quote.
259.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Why would you choose Rust over Go or Node? Oh Jesus, here we go again. They are catering to different domains! Node is intended for doing backend programming for supporting web applications. And there are many better alternatives IMO. R
260.
by flavio81 9y ago
>They find themselves duplicating the same code again and again because Go doesn’t provide good abstractions to reuse code. Or that they write a ton of code to do what could be achieved in a few lines in a reasonable language. This. >
261.
by flavio81 9y ago
> The people who designed golang are not newbies. They didn't ignore anything, nor were they ignorant of other languages. They had good reasons for choosing to go another way that makes sense for their language. Yes, for using monke
262.
by flavio81 9y ago
As a camera nerd owner of many of the cameras mentioned in the article: Canon F-1, New F-1; Nikon F, F2, and F3, plus some Canon EOS cameras, I can plainly say this article is ill-researched and downright silly in places. It thoroughly igno
263.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Who'da thunk one language might eventually eat both a significant chunk of C and a significant chunk of Javascript someday? Erm... PSA: Rust isn't the only language that is compiling to WASM. I'm glad for Rust developer
264.
by flavio81 9y ago
This, a million times. I can't count the many times a business process is done (poorly) by inputing lots of data in an excel file, running a huge (poorly written) macro, and spending the file via email to the next person and so on...
265.
by flavio81 9y ago
>You don't need a domain-specific tool for every problem your business has. If a spreadsheet works, great. If what you are doing is applying math formulas over small or medium sizes of data, then excel is OK. Otherwise it will suck
266.
by flavio81 9y ago
>I'm amazed every time when the training is over and it actually works like intended. Everything which is big enough is more than the sum of it's parts. What about when it doesn't work as intended and fails ridiculously, e
267.
by flavio81 9y ago
>After watching that talk, I would have loved somebody in the audience to point out instance like this https://raygun.com/blog/10-costly-software-errors-history/ and ask for Hickey's comments. Needless to
268.
by flavio81 9y ago
>I’ve tried Clojure a little bit and it seems like a nice language but I’m not convinced by the lack of types. Why wouldn’t you want types? Clojure has classes and types. How can it be untyped? Machine language is untyped.
269.
by flavio81 9y ago
>Javascript and Python are very popular dynamic languages, this doesn't make them good dynamic languages. JS in particular is a very bad example of a dynamic language, the other "very bad" example being classic PHP. This
270.
by flavio81 9y ago
>But why don't they? Aren't the problems nearly the same? And if not, how? Concrete example: Common Lisp is very strongly typed. So it almost never automatically converts from type to another, except when it makes total sense (

More ›