Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

On Lisp

Name: Anonymous 2013-12-28 9:08

Of course, it's feature complete!

Common Lisp is its own standard library. Here are its contents: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Front/index.htm

It's got a whopping 980 functions for all your needs with intuitive and easy to remember names like least-negative-normalized-double-float, update-instance-for-redefined-class, load-logical-pathname-translations, simple-condition-format-arguments, internal-time-units-per-second, pprint-exit-if-list-exhausted and so on. Of course, it purposefully lacks the negligible nonsense like a graphical toolkit, image processing, nonblocking asynchronous IO, remoting, cryptography, SQL, text processing, archive tools, concurrency, parallelism, thread-safe data structures, monitoring & management, printing support, sound and processing, XML toolkits - all of that is useless, after all! The most important thing is that you get to use anaphoric lambdas and pandoric captures whilst munching on momma's tasty soup!

Seriously, you say "a core library" as if Lisp is a practical general-purpose PL. It's a lie. Lisp is no such thing, hence such a short stub in place of a core library and a trashpile of unmaintained cruftworks from fanboy-soup-eaters (a.k.a. CLiki). Look at the core libs of industrial-strength languages like Java or Python. They were forged in the fires of practical problem-solving over many years. While the Lispers have spent the whole 50 years of their totem's existence forging only one thing: their self-aggrandizement.

Although, to do Lisp justice, it should be noted that Franz and Allegro did crank out their bicycle-crutch-ersatz-"core" libraries. This is because during lisp-hype of the 80-90ies these gescheftmachers have managed to get several rich yet clueless Pinocchios addicted to the Lisp drug. Like Boeing, for example. And when the Pinocchios started trying to solve real problems lispishly, they had to hurriedly plug that gaping hole. So go ahead and spend some $4500 for a real Lisp - it's an easy sum for a Lisper, right? - and welcome to the miraculous world of Professional Lisp Pinocchios.

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-02 8:06

>>33

I listed a number of high quality, free, stable, well-maintained Common Lisp libraries. There is also a large amount of very high quality non-free Common Lisp libraries from the commercial vendors.

Metalua (nor Lua for that matter) does not have as many high quality libraries. So the Metalua people claiming Common Lisp has a library problem is stupid.

That being said let it be known that Metalua is on my list of languages I would learn if I had a few more lives. As it is though, I cannot be expert in more than 6 languages, and promising languages like REBOL, Metalua and even classics like Fortran and Simula just do not get my time.

Also, I used Python professionaly after hearing good things about it, but later discovered that the reasons I used Python at that time did not apply to Python at all (Python, next to PHP, is the worst language I have ever used), but instead applied to Lua. I rewrote 10% of the Python in Lua, but at that point it was too late and I just stuck with the Python. If I could go back to that situation now though everything would have been written in Common Lisp and that would have been that.

Once you know Common Lisp your outlook towards 99% of languages is "this is just some small variation with half of everything missing".

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List