LISP

Common LISP doesn't have standard sockets and threads, just like C.

That's so you can write comfortably in both on systems without sockets or threads.

But both CL and C have de-facto (read: all serious implementations do) standards for both.

>>3,4
If by that you mean UNIX sockets and POSIX threads, you don't know what you're on about.

>implying there are serious implementations of CL

'>Implying i need threads or sockets

>>5-6
Fuck off to the imageboards with this implying bullshite.

>>6
That's fine, we can make it so your computer can never use threads again.  But what will you do then?

>>8
Implement them myself.

Considering how CL faggots constantly brag that their language can do anything you'd think they have at least more than the standard C libraries, but no, it seems they're on the level.
Fucking liars.

>>10
Uh, sockets and threads are implemented in pretty much any major CL implementations (and there's quite a few of them). Whatever little differences there are between implementations, they're easily handled by thin compabitility library which provides a standard interface. I write the code once and run it everywhere. If your complaint is that it's not part of the ANSI CL standard, that's hardly an issue, since the standard isn't meant to specify every damn little library that you can think of - especially since at the time it was made, UNIX was hardly the only option and multithreading was quite experimental, so they left these things to newer version of the standard (or just to implementors).

Installing libraries(systems) so so damn easy compared to other languages, that it's hardly any work for me to add new libraries and keep my code portable.

So I hear pretty much every programming language is just reinventing things Lisp has had the last 40 years.
What's up with that?

>>12
but LITHP is shit. and people who use LITHP are shit too.

end of story.

>>10
you'd think they have at least more than the standard C libraries
What about regexen and modules?

Common Lisp is ugly as shit but very, very powerful. It's also great for handling complex as shit stuff and exploratory programming well.
You don't really want to get into it without having enough experience to hate every other language under the sun already though.

Average Lispfag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM1Zb3xmvMc

>>16
iamokaywiththis.svg

Lisp's main problem is with the fragmented (and small) community with all the problems that entail, lack of good documentation (there is some good stuff but not much) and completely lacking in the marketing department outside of the gurus, zealot converts (yes functional programming is really neat I know) and old diehards.
Clojure seem to be getting some of this right however.

>>18
Racket.

Needs moar Monads.

Meeds noar Nomads.

sdeeM raon sdamoN

pump