phoe-krk

53 ms·

721.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
That's not even an attempt at making an actual answer. Emacs + Slime already has a REPL, compilation and/or loading of select forms or whole files, syntax highlighting, auto-indentation, completions, debugger, inspector, stepping,
722.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
What are the major selling points of Allegro and LispWorks over Emacs with Slime/Sly with regard to the IDE point of view? (Asking so we can skip the graph database and GUI libraries; I'm particularly interested in the developer e
723.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Yes - Portacle is an amazing piece of software and also the way to go for someone who just wants to check Lisp out on Mac/Win/Linux, but it also has its issues, e.g. with some systems that depend on foreign libraries. Also, if som
724.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
> Thus, if you're looking to get started with programming in Common Lisp, then there are 2 options: The author misses the third, most classical, and constantly useful option: doing it all yourself. Despite the scary name, there&#x27
725.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Sorry for the mind shortcut. By that, I meant all sorts of problems where multiple state-bearing entities communicate via message passing - usually implemented via method calls in OO languages.
726.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
That's a good explanation. Thanks!
727.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
OK. If I understood correctly, then you limit the mutable state to one point, and use functional logic everywhere around it. You can also optionally close over the atom to achieve encapsulation. Thanks, TIL! That's equivalent to the &q
728.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
I'm aware of this. How do you achieve setters if the state you close over is immutable? Isn't that the default in Clojure, since it seems to aim for immutability by default?
729.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
I don't have much of experience with Clojure myself - the above might be my first impressions from the little bit where I've tried it. Well, let me try to fix them then, and ask some questions. In Clojure, how do you usually appro
730.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
One argument I can think of is that if your problem is not shaped in a functional way, then a functional programming language might be a poor fit for the job. Common Lisp is multi-paradigm language that is pretty bendy with regard to absorb
731.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
VSCode has a Swank client that has a functioning REPL along with other goodies for interactive programming. https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=rheller....
732.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Common Lisp programmer here. https://stevelosh.com/blog/2018/08/a-road-to-common-lisp/ That's the best article I know on the matter.
733.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Yes. That is the part that I agree with.
734.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
I can agree with the second paragraph but I disagree with: > The abstraction is abstraction. It does not matter how it is implemented. To me, it does matter. A good abstraction should not get in the programmer's way. This directly
735.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
> Unfortunately Java’s structure seduces the unwary programmer into excessive abstraction. Between demanding a class for everything and enforcing all types at compile time, it encourages you to lay down layer after layer of formalism in
736.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Sadly can't - I have never needed to use any bulk loading Postgres utilities, so I don't have the necessary experience. Still, I have had some glances at pgloader as a Common Lisp program, and I'm aware that it can migrate fr
737.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
This article, for whatever reason, doesn't mention pgloader! https://pgloader.io/
738.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Came to post exactly this. The OP is a rediscovery of the fact that Lisp parenthesization can, in some cases, be expressed via indentation - and that indentation is in fact crucial to reading Lisp code. When reading Lisp, I never count pare
739.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Yes - thank you for the additional namespaces and about the THROW tag correction. As for compiler macros, they do have their separate namespace, accessible via the `compiler-macro-function` function. They can be invoked instead of functions
740.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Someone requested to add a project to Quicklisp; that project does just what you describe. See the ASD file for details. https://github.com/tdrhq/cl-unix-sockets
741.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Yes, but defining a class always defines a matching type - hence they share a namespace in a way.
742.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Rarer? How? Why? I know multiple people who do it daily. A lot of Lisp code directly depends on foreign libraries.
743.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
The standard Common Lisp namespaces I can count off the top of my head are variables/symbol macros, functions/macros, compiler macros, types/classes/condition types, class slots, TAGBODY tags, BLOCK names, THROW tags, re
744.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
And, by extension, all of its users.
745.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
> Actually, it's not fault of git. Workflow of git takes place through email and patches. This invokes the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" mechanism. E.g. Fossil has no problem integrating issues, merge requests
746.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Now you want to limit their freedom of speech? Because you don't like what they say or how they say it? You're free to skip the parts you don't like and focus on the ones you find valuable. (I was thinking whether to end this
747.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
It definitely was - I'm not negating the fact that the discovery and implementation of printing press was a giant net positive for human civilization as a whole. I'm just not really sure about the omnipresence of the Internet. Too
748.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
Seriously, since when making choices with your private life (and describing the reasons for that choice) is a sign of omniscience and superiority?
749.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
The printing press still required costs to operate - and these costs were huge compared to the costs of required to post on the Internet nowadays. This post mentions that it is the posts done by usual people that do the most harm, usually
750.
by phoe-krk 6y ago
What is the phi function that you use here? If that's Euler's totient, then that does not seem to be well-defined for rational numbers...

More ›