sinsudo 2 hours ago

I know that the purpose of the page is to compare syntax of common lisp, racket, clojure, and emacs lisp. But some examples could be more idiomatic, for instance instead of

  (defun add (a &rest b)
    (if (null b)
        a
        (+ a (eval (cons '+ b)))))

One should avoid eval and use endp instead of null:

   (defun add (a &rest b)
        (if (endp b) a
            (apply #'add (+ a (first b)) (rest b))))
  • CodeArtisan 27 minutes ago

    Shouldn't it be (+ a (apply + b))

vindarel 1 hour ago

Notes on CL:

- why nothing on the "compiler" line? Everytime you load a snippet or a file with SBCL, it compiles it (to machine code). There's also compile-file.

- interpreter: likewise, all code is compiled by default with SBCL, not interpreted, even in the REPL. To use the interpreter, we must do this: https://github.com/lisp-tips/lisp-tips/issues/52

- command line program: the racket cell shows the use of -e (eval), the same can be done with any CL implementation.

- since the string split line introduces cl-ppcre, one could mention cl-str :D (plug) (much terser join, trim, concat etc)

- ah ok, for dates and times, flattening a list, hash-table literals… we need more libraries.

- more files operations: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/files.html

- emacs buffers: now compare with Lem buffers 8-)

- posix-getenv: I'd rather use uiop:getenv (comes in implementations).

- uiop:*command-line-arguments*

- exit: uiop:quit

- uiop:run-program (sync) / launch-program (async)

- java interop: with LispWorks or ABCL (or other libraries)

my 2c

sinsudo 1 hour ago

The page indicates that there is not function for documentation in common lisp, but

  (documentation 'documentation 'function)
      "Return the documentation string of Doc-Type for X, or NIL if none 
        exists. 
        System doc-types are VARIABLE, FUNCTION, STRUCTURE, TYPE, SETF, and T.

 Also http://rosettacode.org for computer tasks implemented in many computer languages to allow you compare syntax and code.
ethagnawl 2 hours ago

This is really neat.

Something I've been meaning to do is try putting together a cross-lisp package manager -- if only because it'd be fun. Maybe it would favor code that could be readily run or eval'd or maybe with some sort of clj/cljs type dynamic dispatch for anything implementation specific.

arikrahman 2 hours ago

Would be interesting to see how Jank is coming along in this space as well.

eamonnsullivan 2 hours ago

Clojure 1.6, Emacs 24.5... These are pretty old versions, at least of those.

  • db48x 2 hours ago

    Most of the things in that table won’t change from version to version anyway.

FergusArgyll 1 hour ago

As someone who's not a programmer but has beginner - medium python & C skills. I'm in middle of learning lisp (elisp to be precise) and it feels like reading poetry. It's a transcendent experience that's hard to explain. Such beautiful concepts. Everything flows in a way it doesn't in C based langs

FrustratedMonky 1 hour ago

Nice comparison.

But makes me think we'd be better off if we all just focused on a single one, and grew it, made it better. Not having 4 versions of something almost identical. Fragmentation can hurt adoption.

  • db48x 59 minutes ago

    That’s what Common Lisp is.

  • erichocean 6 minutes ago

    There are deep reasons for the variations, especially around (reader) macros.