Second-Climacs VS netfarm

see also: https://github.com/robert-strandh/second-climacs

You could also ask in the other direction: why doesn't CL implementations implement Elisp and Emacs? There has actually been experiments to implement Emacs on CL, but that didn't work so well either. Search the Web for Climax which was supposed to be an Emacs Clone which I have no idea how well it materialized, and SecondClimax which seems to be alive, but I have no idea how good it is. The fact that I have never heard anyone of using it should speak for itself.

There is still the Second Climacs editor, which uses a incremental and "proper" Common Lisp reader. scymtym recently did some impressive demos, including incremental parsing and a semantic analyser. I recall seeing more...somewhere.

Sure. We have Climacs and the second one for full Lisp Emacsen, which still run on Unix systems and stock hardware.

Years back, I prototyped something along these lines; screenshots below. Each time I've mentioned it in that time, lots of people were super enthusiastic about using and/or contributing to it, yet best I can tell nobody has done so. Anything that lacks serious lisp developers among its users will remain a toy, and all the serious lisp developers are either happy with Emacs, or building a better emacs.

/u/read-eval-print-loop and I wrote GitLab CI testing configs, though I don't know how much relates to Jenkins. The general recipe is that one starts with an environment with SBCL (and Clozure and any other implementations you want to test on), clones in extra libraries if necessary, and then loads a short file which then loads the test suite, runs it, and exits with an appropriate status code, which the CI (presumably Jenkins too?) uses to produce a status to report.

Tests for the Netfarm suite and Minecraft mostly.

I threw TLA+ at a few fine-grained locking algorithms I wrote. Here is one such model. The actual implementation is more complex than the model, in particular because the real implementation of this code handles multiple concurrent resource requests, but they are "independent" enough that I can probably just prove a model with just one resource; and, as Lamport said once, the model code doesn't have to be particuarly well optimized, whereas if you are breaking locks, you probably have substantially optimized already.

I work on a metacircular Common Lisp implementation, which makes for a very boring answer. In the next closest thing to a job, I use CL for just about the whole network stack, so really anything would be suitable. But I wouldn't dare throwing a new language into a workplace, and I am not sure how much they would appreciate it.

One very niche "counter-example" is a system where loading files causes side effects, which must occur in some order. This happens in the Netfarm object system implementation, where most of the bootstrapping steps occur in an early system definition and a late system definition. In this case it is not enough to compute the dependency tree; it is necessary to pick a very specific ordering for things to not break.

Alexandria, yes, anaphora, not anymore. I do have a fairly large utility package for decentralise2, but it mainly handles concurrency and debugging things.

If it's not distributed under the Cooperative Software License, I don't want it dirtying up my CPU.