Comments on: Thoughts Reading Practical Common Lisp http://goesping.org/archives/2005/11/27/thoughts-reading-practical-common-lisp/ Pinging stuff I care about. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:09:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Spacebat http://goesping.org/archives/2005/11/27/thoughts-reading-practical-common-lisp/#comment-17682 Spacebat Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:38:34 +0000 http://www.goesping.org/?p=725#comment-17682 It seems that the standard is the real curse with common lisp. Its not going to adapt to the world moving forward and leads to multiple subtly incompatible implementations. Then once you're outside the standard (sockets, threading, IPC etc) things diverge wildly. I'm working through Practical Common Lisp because I've put off learning this great and venerable language for too long. Preferring OSS implementations leads to an interesting choice that a newcomer to the language isn't well placed to make. I want native threads and portability. Currently learning on SBCL, I can see myself switching to OpenMCL if/when the x86 port is complete. That's for CL anyways - I'm interested in Clojure as a modern Lisp thats portable (in the sense java bytecode is portable), threaded and solves the library problem (java classes are trivial to call from it and vice versa). Perhaps it lets go of some of the CL baggage, but until I learn CL properly I won't know if that's the case :) It seems that the standard is the real curse with common lisp. Its not going to adapt to the world moving forward and leads to multiple subtly incompatible implementations. Then once you’re outside the standard (sockets, threading, IPC etc) things diverge wildly.

I’m working through Practical Common Lisp because I’ve put off learning this great and venerable language for too long. Preferring OSS implementations leads to an interesting choice that a newcomer to the language isn’t well placed to make. I want native threads and portability. Currently learning on SBCL, I can see myself switching to OpenMCL if/when the x86 port is complete.

That’s for CL anyways - I’m interested in Clojure as a modern Lisp thats portable (in the sense java bytecode is portable), threaded and solves the library problem (java classes are trivial to call from it and vice versa). Perhaps it lets go of some of the CL baggage, but until I learn CL properly I won’t know if that’s the case :)

]]> By: Ed That Goes Ping http://goesping.org/archives/2005/11/27/thoughts-reading-practical-common-lisp/#comment-17639 Ed That Goes Ping Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:19:14 +0000 http://www.goesping.org/?p=725#comment-17639 Pointless maybe but cool. I'm honored you dropped by to comment on it, Daniel! Thanks! Pointless maybe but cool. I’m honored you dropped by to comment on it, Daniel! Thanks!

]]> By: Daniel Weinreb http://goesping.org/archives/2005/11/27/thoughts-reading-practical-common-lisp/#comment-17637 Daniel Weinreb Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:10:58 +0000 http://www.goesping.org/?p=725#comment-17637 The Roman numeral printer is my fault. It was more for humor value than anything else, although there are actually times when it's useful to print Roman numerals (section/chapter numbering). The "old-style Roman numerals" was because Tom Knight asked me to put it in; that's really pointless! The Roman numeral printer is my fault. It was more for humor value than anything else, although there are actually times when it’s useful to print Roman numerals (section/chapter numbering). The “old-style Roman numerals” was because Tom Knight asked me to put it in; that’s really pointless!

]]> By: Marc http://goesping.org/archives/2005/11/27/thoughts-reading-practical-common-lisp/#comment-6274 Marc Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:28:02 +0000 http://www.goesping.org/?p=725#comment-6274 I've read most of Practical Common Lisp like you and I've quite enjoyed it. I thought that CLOS was really cool - generic functions and multiple dispatch appeal to me. I think I've pretty much gotten past the parentheses and the car and cdr crap, but I still have doubts about using Common Lisp on a project, because of the lack of libraries and all the different incompatible implementations. It seems to me that Python and Ruby have most of the power of Lisp (macros are something in which Lisp definitely has an edge) and have excellent libraries that work the same across all platforms. I’ve read most of Practical Common Lisp like you and I’ve quite enjoyed it.

I thought that CLOS was really cool - generic functions and multiple dispatch appeal to me.

I think I’ve pretty much gotten past the parentheses and the car and cdr crap, but I still have doubts about using Common Lisp on a project, because of the lack of libraries and all the different incompatible implementations. It seems to me that Python and Ruby have most of the power of Lisp (macros are something in which Lisp definitely has an edge) and have excellent libraries that work the same across all platforms.

]]> By: Ed That Goes Ping http://goesping.org/archives/2005/11/27/thoughts-reading-practical-common-lisp/#comment-5881 Ed That Goes Ping Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:29:31 +0000 http://www.goesping.org/?p=725#comment-5881 Thanks for the comment, Elliot. Yes, the fact that Lisp syntax and Lisp data structures are mirror images of each other seems to be the terribly important thing that allows macros to have the power they have. The only not-lispy language I've heard of that might have something comparable is REBOL; I don't know much about REBOL and so I don't know how comparable code-as-data in REBOL is to code-as-data in LISP. Thanks for the comment, Elliot.

Yes, the fact that Lisp syntax and Lisp data structures are mirror images of each other seems to be the terribly important thing that allows macros to have the power they have.

The only not-lispy language I’ve heard of that might have something comparable is REBOL; I don’t know much about REBOL and so I don’t know how comparable code-as-data in REBOL is to code-as-data in LISP.

]]>