ccl
coalton
Our great sponsors
ccl | coalton | |
---|---|---|
18 | 84 | |
814 | 990 | |
2.0% | 3.3% | |
7.3 | 8.4 | |
27 days ago | about 9 hours ago | |
Common Lisp | Common Lisp | |
Apache License 2.0 | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
ccl
-
Don't Invent XML Languages (2006)
There's plenty of history of s-expression formats for documentation. One example is: https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/tree/master/doc/manual
But, also, there's plenty of uses of XML that are not "artcles and books". For example, Maven's pom.xml and log4j2.xml.
-
The IDEs we had 30 years ago and we lost
The descendant of CCL runs on modern Intel Macs. (It also runs on Linux and Windows but without the IDE.) The modern IDE is quite a bit different from the original. In particular, it no longer has the interface builder. But it's still pretty good. It is now called Clozure Common Lisp (so the acronym is still CCL) and you can find it here:
If you want to run the original that is a bit of a challenge, but still possible. The original was never ported directly to OS X so you have to run it either on old hardware or an emulator running some version of the original MacOS, or on an older Mac running Rosetta 1. In the latter case you will want to look for something called RMCL. Also be aware that Coral Common Lisp was renamed Macintosh Common Lisp (i.e. MCL) before it became Clozure Common Lisp (CCL again).
This looks like it might be a promising place to start:
If you need more help try this mailing list:
- The Saga of the Closure Compiler, and Why TypeScript Won
-
Clozure CL 1.12.2
Download: https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/releases/tag/v1.12.2
-
plain-common-lisp: a lightweight framework created to make it easier for software developers to develop and distribute Common Lisp applications on Microsoft Windows
I was not aware that UIOP provided that function. plain-common-lisp used to be implemented with Clozure CL but eventually moved to SBCL due to the lack of maintenance of CCL. But now there is a hard dependency on SBCL.
- Clozure Common Lisp Wiki
-
Consuming HTTP endpoint using Common Lisp
I have decided it is time to have some fun and use Common Lisp to create algorithm representation that deals with parallel execution. For this I decided to use Clozure common lisp, put basic Qucklisp there and load some libraries to do this.
-
The Origins of Lisp
Lisp must be read outside->in to understand what it is saying. Given (foo (a) (b c)), if you don't know what foo is and just start reading (b c), which is inside, hoping that later you can work out what is foo, you could be going down a blind alley. foo could be a macro or special operator which entirely controls what (b c) means.
To understand what is calculated in Lisp, given that you understand what the syntax means, the evaluation is inside->out.
That's no different from math. In any languages that have math-like nested expressions with bracketing, you have inside-out evaluation.
The alternative are catenative languages and such, which have never been mainstream.
There are assembly languages which go line by line.
Imperative languages with statements and expressions tend to have small expressions where evaluation is followed inside-out; the rest of the control flow is just top down, with some forward and backward skips.
Lisp has all of the above in it. Lisp can be assembly language. For instance, in thsi source file from Clozure Common Lisp:
https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/blob/master/level-0/ARM/arm-h...
(defarmlapfunction fast-mod-3 ((number arg_x) (divisor arg_y) (recip arg_z))
- Corman Lisp development environment for MS Windows
coalton
-
How to Write a (Lisp) Interpreter (In Python)
It's still… not the same. In CL (and specially with SBCL), we get compile time (type) errors and warnings at the blink of an eye, when we compile a single function with a keystroke (typically C-c C-c in Slime).
And there's also been improvement, see Coalton for a ML on top of CL. (https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/)
-
Typing Haskell in Haskell
For the parenthetically inclined among us, there's also an implementation in Coalton: <https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/tree/main/examples/t...>
-
Embracing Common Lisp in the Modern World
Common Lisp has bad marketing (even OCaml has Twitch streamers and "influencers" now), and bad support for general editors, both of which make it a non-starter for most curious people who have an afternoon to try something. But behind all that is magnificent activity for those who got over the initial potential energy barrier. Just to give some examples:
1. SBCL, the most popular open source implementation of Lisp, is seeing potentially two new garbage collectors. One of them is a parallel collector written by a university student (!!) which blows my mind.
2. SBCL has better and better support for deploying Liwp as a C-compatible shared library, using SBCL-LIBRARIAN. It makes it play nicer with other applications in C and Python.
3. Coalton is another exciting development that allows a Haskell type system and "Lisp-1" functional programming in Common Lisp. That means type classes (or traits), something Lisp hasn't really had a proper notion of, and full type inference. Persistent sequences based off of RRB-trees were recently merged, and interestingly, they're implemented purely in Coalton [1]. That means Clojure-like seqs.
It's interesting to see users of Lisp generating the above ideas and libraries, not a special in-group of committees, "official" developers, etc.
[1] https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/blob/main/library/se...
-
Steel – An embedded scheme interpreter in Rust
Use an editor that auto-inserts parens and that indents the code correctly. Now nothing bad can happen. And the parens are used to edit code structurally.
re typing: Coalton brings Haskell-like typing on top of CL. https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/ Other lisps are typed: typed racket, Carp… and btw, SBCL's compiler brings some welcome type warnings and errors (unlike Python, for instance).
-
Show HN: Collaborative Lisp Coding on Discord
If you like type safety, this project would be perfect for using https://coalton-lang.github.io/ so your REPL supported Common Lisp out of the gate.
-
A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure
Agree that you can use types to express and prove logical properties via compiler; it can be a fun way to solve a problem though too much of it tends to frustrate coworkers. It's also not exactly "low cost"; here's an old quip I have in my quotes file:
"With Scala you feel smart having just got something to work in a beautiful way but when you look around the room to tell your clojure colleague how clever you are, you notice he left 3 hours ago and there is a post-it saying use a Map." --Daniel Worthington-Bodart
> On the contrary, they're still the most effective technique we've found for improving program correctness at low cost.
This is not borne out by research, such as there is any of any quality: https://danluu.com/empirical-pl/ The best intervention to improve correctness, if not already being done, is code review: https://twitter.com/hillelogram/status/1120495752969641986 This doesn't necessarily mean dynamic types are better, just that if static types are better, they aren't tremendously so to obviously show in studies, unlike code review benefit studies.
My own bias is in favor of dynamic types, though I think the way Common Lisp does it is a lot better than Python (plus Lisp is flexible enough in other ways to let static type enthusiasts have their cake and eat it too https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton), and Python better than PHP, and PHP better than JS. Just like not all static type systems are C, not all dynamic type systems are JS. Untyped langs like assembly or Forth are interesting but I don't have enough experience.
I don't find the argument that valuable though, since I think just focusing on dynamic vs static is one of the least interesting division points when comparing languages or practices, and if we're trading experience takes I think Clojure's immutable-by-default prevents more bugs than any statically typed language that is mutable by default. It's not exactly a low cost intervention though, and when you really need to optimize you'll be encouraged by the profiler to replace some things with Java native arrays and so on. I don't think changing to static types would make a quality difference (especially when things like spec exist to get many of the same or more benefits) and would also not be a low cost intervention.
Last quip to reflect on. "What's true of every bug found in the field? ... It passed the type checker. ... It passed all the tests. Okay. So now what do you do? Right? I think we're in this world I'd like to call guardrail programming. Right? It's really sad. We're like: I can make change because I have tests. Who does that? Who drives their car around banging against the guardrail saying, "Whoa! I'm glad I've got these guardrails because I'd never make it to the show on time."" --Rich Hickey (https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/)
-
Coalton to Lispers without a background in ML-like languages
Coalton seems great, I love the idea. This issue seems problematic, though: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/issues/84
-
Compiler Development: Rust or OCaml?
> Lisps can be very flexible, but they usually lack static type safety, opening a wide and horrible door to run-time errors.
People should do basic research before writing something silly like this. Qualifying your statement with 'usually' is just a chicken sh*t approach. Common Lisp and Racket have optional strong typing, leaving the responsibility and choice to the developer. Common Lisp is great for implementing compilers. You also have thing like Typed Racket and Coalton. The latter is comletely statically typed ala MLTON
-
Why I Still Lisp (and You Should Too)
Have you checked out Coalton? It allows static typing a la Haskell within Common Lisp. Fully interoperable with CL, including through SLIME etc.
-
Common Lisp for large software
I've not regretted using Common Lisp for large, professional projects. However, I started Coalton so that some parts of a Common Lisp project can have strong, static, strict types—reaping benefits of compile-time errors and increased efficiency when I need it, without having to rewrite everything.
What are some alternatives?
sbcl - Mirror of Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL)'s official repository
awesome-lisp-companies - Awesome Lisp Companies
lisp-interface-library - LIL: abstract interfaces and supporting concrete data-structures in Common Lisp
hackett - WIP implementation of a Haskell-like Lisp in Racket
sketch - A Common Lisp framework for the creation of electronic art, visual design, game prototyping, game making, computer graphics, exploration of human-computer interaction, and more.
racket - The Racket repository
data-lens - Functional utilities for Common Lisp
paip-lisp - Lisp code for the textbook "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming"
land-of-lisp-using-hunchentoot - Convert code for "Dice of Doom" from Barski's "Land of Lisp" to use Hunchentoot web server.
phel-lang - Phel is a functional programming language that compiles to PHP. A Lisp dialect inspired by Clojure and Janet.
sketch - AI code-writing assistant that understands data content
cl-cookbook - The Common Lisp Cookbook