Gabriel Lucid, Inc. Many companies used it during that time for deployment of Lisp applications. I hadn't heard of L, but that seems in line with Brooks' earlier criticism that the language was too big. The Common Lisp product was great. L is a Lisp for embedded systems.
It's a subset of Common Lisp - nothing unusual. The origins of lisp are that of a mathematical tool. Clojure is much closer to math with its referential transparency, immutable datatypes, deep proper object equality, and data first philosophy, than common lisp with its systems programming, lisp machine, need for speed approach.
If we're talking origins of lisp, the original description of lisp[1] spends much of its time describing cons cells, something that clojure lacks completely. Yeah and the original cons cells had proper equality defined on them, which common lisp doesn't have. Also the original lisp wasn't a lisp In clojure you can trivially use your own cons cells and get equality for free, in common lisp you can't build the proper mathematical properties without essentially reinventing clojure.
Substantiate your claims. Most things in common lisp don't work with 'equal', which "poisons" the well so to speak. For example hash tables. Quit with :quit or Ctrl-D on empty line. Nice to hear, not CL tho ;P The equal ' 1 2 ' 1 2.
But I'm really not sure if that's a bad thing. Clojure has it's own std-lib. You can even share a significant part of your code between clojure and clojurescript. The origins of Lisp is 'list processing', hence the name, which is an abbreviation of 'List Processor'.
Earlier he experimented with list processing in Fortran, but wanted to have a whole new programming system. Turns out we're both right. I considered it important to make these expressions obey the usual mathematical laws allowing replacement of expressions by expressions giving the same value. The motive was to allow proofs of properties of programs using ordinary mathematical methods. This is only possible to the extent that side-effects can be avoided.
Functions with side-effects are common in LISP. That's why LISP functions are more like traditional procedures and less like mathematical functions. Did you even read the piece by McCarty?
He talks about how it was meant as an alternative to the computational models based on turing machines in addition to a symbolic computation tool for AI and therefore used side effects for convenience but also tried to keep mathematical properties, like referential transparency.
Tbh it seems pointless discussing this with you because the idea of common lisp being the embodyment of the lisp philosophy seems to have become personal to you. Sorry my energy reservoirs are drained, I'm just gonna ignore your posts, and head back to work, there's a large CL codebase that needs to be rewritten to clojure and that's stressful enough. Only if your knowledge of Common Lisp is at the level of "armchair specialist".
Said the "armchair clojure specialist" ;. And me thinking that Clojure had OOP and imperative programming forms as well. Yeah but it's neither encouraged nor fundamental. Whereas most common lisp code heavily emphasized loops and methods in an impure way. CL is a systems programming language, while clojure always feels like a tool for tought, in the APL sense. The features are there and everyone is free to use them, and I am yet to see a Clojure linter against using those features. In fact, Clojure cannot interop with its host platforms without doing any kind of OOP.
You'd be surprised how well a common philosophy in the community keeps everything nice and tidy. If you look at old clojure libraries like Incanter which were still heavily influenced by CL they're nothing like recently developed ones. Clojure discourages mutability and side effects. CL embraces them, it doesn't even have immutable datatypes, let alone sane deep equality.
It is relevant, because the unsafe features are still there, regardless how many use them, language culture and what not. A language is made by the language specification and its standard library, not by whatever the community feels as trendy. So whats your point really?
That clojure is still too close to common lisp, and we should all use a haskell or idris with s-expressions? You completely missed my point. They should all read "The Art of the Metaobject Protocol" book, plenty of copies still available. But like I said, according to that reasoning Rust isn't safe either.
Which it clearly is. But sure you could program clojure in an extremely OO way, with multimethods and protocols. In my experience you never use the former, and you pick the latter only for performance reasons or in the extremely rare case where you need your own custom datatype. Haskell has typeclasses, and ML has Modules, which allow for polymorphic single dispatch. But I don't think one would argue that they're OO. The clojure community avoids both of these things. The Clojure community cannot avoid what is a required feature to integrate with the host platforms.
Again, with that reasoning every programming language is procedural, because they all run on procedural operating sytems. Clojure uses JS and JVM as targets to gain reach and to reuse existing code, having good interop with them makes it a hosted language but not one that is bound to the programming model of the language it's hosted on.
Avoidance means rare usage, and no usage if possible, not circumvention. You will have a very useful companion going forward, no matter what you work with. No Emacs required; there is a REPL with persistent history and a decent multi-line editing mode built in, and the project provides an pretty accurate Vim syntax highlighting file two actually, for the two languages.
It's conveniently documented in a single man page, like another Unix tool. That man page is also available as a hyperlinked HTML document, also all in one page. If you'd like to start with a light, fun introduction, "Lists and Lists" is an old interactive fiction game from the illustrious Andrew Plotkin, in which a genie gives you puzzles to solve using Scheme.
It's a delightful introduction to Lisp-y thinking. I'd learn Scheme before CL or Clojure. Way smaller; lets you focus on the idea of Lisp instead of a specific bloated, warty Lisp dialect. Try writing an interpreter! I would suggest you start with Racket. My vote goes to Clojure because it has been reworked from scratch to drop the inessential cruft. To my knowledge hasn't re-accummulated the cruft yet It also has quite a lot of ideas that are useful outside Clojure, like its concepts around concurrency, state and immutability.
Clearly, the best way to learn Lisp is recursively. I am undecided. The main things about Lisp: 1. Finally, try running it, providing it with a maximum number from which to choose its random number:.
You may notice that your emulated die has a pontential value of 0, and never reaches the maximum number you provide to it as an argument. In other words, this script never rolls 20 on a sided die unless you count 0 as There's a simple fix to this, and you only need the knowledge gained from this article to do it.
Can you fix this bug? Whether you can imagine using Lisp as a utilitarian language for personal scripts, to advance your career, or just as a fun experiment, you can see some particularly inventive uses at the annual Lisp Game Jam most submissions are open source, so you can view the code to learn from what you play.
Lisp is a fun and unique language with an ever-growing developer base and enough historic and emerging dialects to keep programmers from all disciplines happy. I'm always learning something new from you. Did you know that the Logo computer language which was developed by Seymour Papert and others is an adaptation of Lisp? I remember my brother telling me that when I was trying to use Logo in the late 's in my classroom. Really loved this article, I've only heard about Lisp before but seeing this makes me want to try it.
Academically, it is interesting. Aside from that it is a hard to read b hard to debug c uses a notation that is anything but intuitive and therefore LISP code tends to be hard to write and very hard to maintain, never mind security. FORTH was interesting in its day, too, and was indeed useful on machines with very limited resources. Today it is, and should be, a curiosity.
LISP is also a curiosity, and belongs in academia and almost nowhere else, eMacs not withstanding - and on the IBM where it was first conceived - that is vacuum tubes, folks - and the IBM If you listen carefully, you'll hear the voices of Racket, Guile, Fennel, and Lisp users across the galaxy crying out at once. That's not a known issue.
You should either submit a bug, or get checked at your nearest GP. That means the 'shebang' should be '! Yes, in my eagerness to demonstrate how many choices of Lisps you have, I'm afraid I confused the matter. I've amended tho article for future readers. It will start gcl and I'm greeted with a prompt.
Fedora 34 live CD. Succinctness is Power is an argument that succinctness is…power great title. I agree that succinctness is a good measure of language power. Go, Elm and Rust are examples of modern laguages that do not prioritize power above all else. These languages are powerful because programmers can implement bug-free code faster in theory. Programming Bottom-Up is an attractive idea to me because I design programs in the top-down manner. Also based on my reading, Lisp seems to be best used in applications where again, no particular order :.
Python 3 henceforth referred to as just Python has excellent community support, simple syntax, and a C FFI as a performance escape-hatch. MyPy also makes writing correct code much easier in my opinion. Python does not treat everything as an expression. In Python, you cannot use an if-statement as a value in an assignment expression:. Arguably you can do this in Python as well thanks to the power of immediately invoked function expressions , as I recently learned from Garrett Morse , but it is certainly less ergnomic:.
It may also not be a particularly useful one to answer: many implementations have a specific focus so are best chosen if they fit your particular problem rather than based on how widely it is otherwise used. Instead, I'll tell you a little bit about your options and you can decide for yourself. LISP is a family of languages and each of those languages has a family of dialects and implementations. That is to say, it was a HUGE language.
It had everything. Over the last few years, Clojure has appeared. Traditionally, other LISPs have been strictly multi-paradigm. There's still a lot of the verbosity of Java-based languages and they've been fairly free and easy with the syntax so that has lots of knobs and buttons for different things, but they've got some really interesting ideas around datatypes, especially some of the practical ways they have come up with to apply ideas from functional programming.
Yes: they have a maths joke in there. Scheme is a standardised language in a way that other LISPs are not. This helps greatly with portability between implementations, but it's not a silver bullet. The standardisation efforts have tended to be conservative and innovations in the implementations, especially around things like modules, have tended to be disparate.
People use it to standardise small things as needed. Schemes are different from LISPs that they have a set of hard requirements that they must satisfy, one of which is "tail call optimisation" which helps make recursion efficient. That is to say, it's a small languages and you're supposed to be able to keep all of it in your head at once. The R7RS standardisation process is currently ongoing and has tried to include both the R5RS implementers' desires as well as those of the R6RS folk by standardising a small base language in their first working group and then commissioning a second working group to standardise the larger features.
This will allow the language to have efficient and useful implementations on both tiny embedded hardware as well as more capable machines. It's tiny! It's author wrote it for himself and, as I understand it, he's been making a living off of it since the s. If you ever get the opportunity to attend a talk by him then you should do it: he's really interesting and really knows his stuff and you won't get even the smallest sniff of anything mainstream or boring. Racket is an R6RS scheme but lately it seems to have widened the net and is trying "to serve as a platform for language creation, design, and implementation.
Chicken aims to be a practical Scheme. It's based on R5RS and compiles down to C. This turns out to be a really, really, important advantage as it makes it absolutely trivial to use existing C libraries. Therefore Chicken is probably the most useful scheme for replacing Perl, Python, Ruby, etc, as your day-to-day scripting language. There are several people who have used it exclusively for all their needs for several years. It has an interactive REPL as well as a compiler. The community both on the mailing list and IRC are knowledgeable, friendly and helpful.
Look for an implementation with lots of modules: this shows that it's widely usable and means that it's likely to have something that helps with the task at hand. A lot of the implementations designed for teaching are very difficult to use for general purpose scripting. I'd recommend Chicken as that's what I use. I've used it in my personal projects and I've used it and am currently using it professionally.
I don't want to invest undue effort in something if its totally obsolete - I'd still learn it if it was professionally "dead", but only with an academic perspective Scheme isn't professionally dead, but you might have to go to some lengths to use it in that context.
Something like Chicken is far more than an academic pursuit and it can easily cover almost all the bases of whatever high-level languages you currently use. Can't really speak for all Lisps but Clojure is definitely a hot and relevant language at present.
I've found it to be a very enlightening experience to learn Lisp in the form of Clojure over the past year after a lot of experience with Java and C. Main reasons for this are:. I personally know of people using Clojure in a couple of investment banks and startups. I've also chosen Clojure as the primary development language for my own startup, so I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is I'm currently learning Lisp as well and I love it.
As for uses, Lisp has been used a lot in Artificial Intelligence but I'll be honest, I'm not sure how many other "general" uses for Lisp. A lot of the websites that were built in Lisp originally have been re-written in other languages so it is hard to say that it is used in web development not saying it isn't, but the larger sites that use it no longer do.
After doing a quick search very quick here is a list of software written in Common Lisp from Wikipedia. They aren't as numerous as, say Java or C jobs, but they exist.
I think Lisp is one of those languages that is used for internal applications and may provide a competitive advantage which companies don't want to give up by advertising that they use Lisp. I remember seeing a post on P. SE that stated Smalltalk was similar in the financial arena. Also, being able to show you are able to learn different paradigms can open up more doors even if you don't use Lisp in the job.
If you want to learn Lisp today, I'd have a look at either racket, which is a fast scheme implementation well, it actually departed a little from scheme, so it is its own dialect now or clojure, which benefits from the JVM it runs on so gazillions of libraries are available, plus you can make it interact with your own Java code. Even if you don't learn it to actually use it, learning it is always beneficial : you learn new ways to think and deal with problems, even in other languages, once you've wrapped your mind around Lisp for a while.
Stores is one of classic examples of Lisp web apps. From the Yahoo! Stores fame you may have heard of Paul Graham. Graham is one of the best known Lisp advocates and writes extensively about this subject. You might want to read his site to known his points. Scheme is a clean language and very elegant. It's probably my favorite programming language so I may be biased.
If I was going to write right now a major application I'd probably write a skeleton application in C, extend and define business rules in Scheme. This allows me use Scheme and to leverage C - for speed and for the sheer availability of libraries for almost everything.
But one company to keep an eye on is Naughty Dog. All of their games are written with a Lisp dialect. Originally, they rolled their own, but they use MZScheme in the Uncharted series. I'd wager that Common Lisp, Clojure, Scheme, and Emacs Lisp are the four most widely used dialects, and of those, I'd suspect that Scheme is the most commonly-deployed.
I don't have anything to back this up with, of course. I think it partially depends on what you want to do with it - if you are looking at furthering your insights into the various concepts of programming and make yourself a better programmer then I would say it is worth learning at least a modicum of Lisp. If you're looking for yet another language to add to your resume with a view to getting a job working with this language, you probably want to look elsewhere.
0コメント