undefined | Better HN

0 pointsblue116y ago0 comments

Common Lisp was an effort to create an unified, "industrial strength" version of Lisp, because at the time there were many. For this reason the resulting standard is very large and complex. Scheme has been designed with a different agenda (cleanliness, elegance, etc.) and it is more used in the academia ; for example, scheme is the dialect used in the famous SICP book.

If you choose CL, the choice of implementation is not very important while you learn it. Different CL implementations have different strength, e.g. in unicode implementation, compilation speed, treatment of certain kinds of numbers etc., but it is not relevant for a beginner. A popular open source choice is SBCL, but there are others.

Also, there are free/opensource implementations and commercial implementations. The commercial ones are costly (but trial versions exist); they give a more complete environment.

0 comments

Novash16y ago

And even though Scheme was designed to be clean and elegant, CL has to be backward compatible and thus cannot be 'cleaned', right?.

Is there any 'cleaner' CL standard, or at least a 'best practices' guide to code in a cleaner way, avoiding the worse pits that had to be kept in the standard due to backward compatibility?

I can give you a simple C++ example of what I mean. In C, you had those *parameters that had to be matched by &args when the function was called. C++ brought some self-referencing &parameters that were passed normally and worked the same way than the former but were (saidly) less error-prone.

Is there any similar effort being made in Lisp?

blue1OP16y ago

The "backward compatibility issue" means simply that the Common Lisp is a very large language, so it is slightly more scaring at first. Also, some things are strangely named for historical reasons.

Regarding scheme vs CL, I don't want to start a flame war, I like both languages. It seems to me that CL is more dirty-hands, product-oriented and agnostic, while Scheme is sort of a beautiful thought experiment, meant to teach things. [Yes, I know you can code practical things in scheme too]

CL gives you more rope to hang yourself with macros. Which is a things that most hackers appreciate, anyway.

There aren't many style guides on CL, but Peter Seibel's book is a good start. But in the end I think you should try to play more with code and worry less about lisp theology :)

Novash16y ago

That's exactly what I am trying to do. but I am hearing all those omens about Lisp but I sense I need to understand it better before I dive myself into it. There is absolutely NO market for it where I live so, if I would learn it, it would be for personal gain. Not that it is a problem, but without a market compass, I feel like I need a map.

Thanks for your answers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsblue116y ago0 comments

Also, there are free/opensource implementations and commercial implementations. The commercial ones are costly (but trial versions exist); they give a more complete environment.

0 comments

Novash16y ago

And even though Scheme was designed to be clean and elegant, CL has to be backward compatible and thus cannot be 'cleaned', right?.

Is there any 'cleaner' CL standard, or at least a 'best practices' guide to code in a cleaner way, avoiding the worse pits that had to be kept in the standard due to backward compatibility?

Is there any similar effort being made in Lisp?

blue1OP16y ago

The "backward compatibility issue" means simply that the Common Lisp is a very large language, so it is slightly more scaring at first. Also, some things are strangely named for historical reasons.

CL gives you more rope to hang yourself with macros. Which is a things that most hackers appreciate, anyway.

There aren't many style guides on CL, but Peter Seibel's book is a good start. But in the end I think you should try to play more with code and worry less about lisp theology :)

Novash16y ago

Thanks for your answers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse