clasp VS oil

I accidentally a Common Lisp that interoperates with C++ (https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp.git). We would also like to move beyond BDWGC and Whiffle looks interesting. I will reach out to you and maybe we can chat about it.

Clasp might be such a language, it seems.

https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp

/u/jeaye are you aware of CLASP? https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdXeRBbgDM

Sounds to me like CLASP; it automatically exports C++ objects to be used from Common Lisp also via llvm.

Now, the difference of compiling speed of SBCL and CCL is not so big. Look at cl-benchmark, LispWorks is really fast, CCL is on par with Allegro, SBCL is close to CCL. Or https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp/wiki/Relative-Compile-Performance-of-clasp, it depends on specific project (SBCL sometimes faster, slower, alike), overall difference is not big.

So..

"Why do you want to make Lisp more popular? If you were sucessful, what would be different in the world, and why is that desirable to you?"

Normally at this point I'd listen to the response, and ask more questions based on that. That would wind up with a very, very deep thread, so I'll break a cardinal rule and pre-guess at some answers.

This kind of question comes up pretty frequently. In many cases, I suspect the motivation behind the question is "Wow! Here's this cool tool I've discovered. I want to make something really useful with it. I want to do it as part of a community effort; share my excitement with others, share in their excitement, and know that what I'm making is useful because others find it desirable and are excited by it." The field could be cooking, sports, old machine tools, tiny homes, or demo scene. Its the fundemental driver for most content on HN, YouTube, Instructables, and such. It is a Good Thing.

If that is your motivator, then my suggestion is to find something that bugs you and fix it. You've already decided you're only interested in code, not other aspects. You said you preferred vim, but the emacs ecosystem has a very rich set of sharp edges that need filing off, and a rich set of tools with which to attack them.

One example: even after 50 years there's no open IDE which allows you to easily globally rename a Lisp identifier. I don't know about LispWorks or other proprietary environments, but you can't in emacs or vim do a right-click on "foo" in "(defun foo ()...)" and select a command which automatically renames it in all invocations. [Queue lots of "but you can..." replies here.] I don't think vim is up to the task of doing this internally. It would be possible in emacs; but would require a huge effort with lots of help from other people. If you emerged alive from that rabbit warren you'd join the company of Certified "How Hard Could it Be?" Mad Scientists such as Dr. "I just want to draw molecules" Meister [1] and "Wouldn't an OS in Lisp be Cool" Froggey [2].

[1] https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp

[2] Mezzano https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano

But also, there's a reason why most implementations readily make an effort to provide interoperability tools with a variety of runtimes. Clasp much like ABCL gives access to a whole library of other libraries trivially wrapped to interoperate with at little to no performance to cost (depending on how thin you make the wrappers, mainly).

Some related references (on a somewhat messy wiki page) - https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/Compact-AST-Representat...

Feel free to add others

will prevent almost all of the "silent footguns".

YSH has strict:all and then a bunch of NEW features.

There's been good feedback recently, which has led to many concrete changes. So your experience can definitely influence the language! https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/Where-To-Send-Feedback

Regarding writing tools/tests/benchmarks in bash+Python, vs. writing tools in your main language:

I think we might eventually concede that something Debian-like is the “standard development environment” (at least for server side stuff, i.e. not iOS apps)

In this case, bash+Python is a non-issue. It works extremely reliably. That’s actually why I use it! Everything else seems to break, or it’s really slow (node.js is a very common alternative).

- Microsoft conceded this back in ~2017, by building Linux into their kernel with WSL, and providing Ubuntu on top

Yes bash + Python is a disaster on Windows (I have scars from it), but Microsoft agrees that the right place to solve that is in Windows :-)

- Every CI system runs Debian/Ubuntu

- Every hosting provider runs Debian/Ubuntu

- Every online dev env like gitpod.io provides Debian/Ubuntu

This is somewhat related to remote dev envs: https://lobste.rs/s/ucirlx/lapdev_self_hosted_remote_dev

One vision for https://www.oilshell.org/ is that the CI environment is the dev environment is the hosting environment.

Everything is just an equal node in a distributed system. BUT it’s more git like, in that you explicitly sync and work “locally”, wherever that is. You don’t have the network chatter and flakiness of “the cloud”.

Oils has a very large set of monotonically increasing properties too - https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.21.0/quality.html

All that is bash+Python that is run on every commit, and it’s extremely good at catching bugs and perf regressions.

I’m skeptical that any project has that level of quality automation written in pure Rust or Zig. More likely it’s a bunch of cloud services with YAML.

Also a bunch of “hard-coded” toolchains that you can’t script with bespoke code. Like some shell commands in your package.json, which is just a worse way of writing a shell script.

Our quality process is all self-hosted, in the repo, and runs on both Github Actions and sourcehut - https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.21.0/pub/metrics.wwz/line...

bash and Python runs perfectly on Github Actions and sourcehut, with zero change. Containers also do.

(Although we need to unify the CI and release, because the release runs on 2 different real hardware machines, while CI is cloud only.)

Also, a main point Oils is that bash now has another highly compatible, spec-driven implementation – OSH. Having 2 independent implementations is something newer languages don’t have.

(copy of lobste.rs comment)

in your bashrc to enable it. I've used it for probably ~18 years now.

It also works with https://www.oilshell.org/ since we use GNU readline. Just 'set -o vi' in ~/.config/oils/oshrc

No other shell does that.

But I didn't know it was called MULTIOS until now. (I guess that's read "mult I/O's"? I have a hard time not reading it was multi-OS :) )

It seems a bit niche to be honest, but it's possible to support in Oils.

---

Oils also uses Unix domain sockets already for the headless shell protocol

https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/Headless-Mode

We could do something like dgsh, but so far I haven't seen a lot of uptake / demand. Every time it's mentioned, somebody kinda wants it, and then it kinda peters out again ... still possible though.

I think flat files work fine for a lot of use cases, and once you add streaming, you also want monitoring, more control over backpressure/queue sizes, etc.

which works well. You don't have to clean when rebuilding variants. IMO this is 100% essential for writing C++ these days. You need a bunch of test binaries, and all tests should be run with ASAN and UBSAN.

---

I wrote a mini-bazel on top of Ninja with these features:

https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2022/10/garbage-collector.html...

So it's ~1700 lines, but for that you get the build macros like asdl_library() generating C++ and Python (the same as proto_library(), a schema language that generates code)

And it also correctly finds dependencies of code generators. So if you change a .py file that is imported by another .py file that is used to generated a C++ header, everything will work. That was one of the trickier bits, with Ninja implicit dependencies.

I also use the Bazel-target syntax like //core/process

This build file example mixes low level Ninja n.rule() and n.build() with high level r.cc_library() and so forth. I find this layering really does make it scale better for bigger projects

https://github.com/oilshell/oil/blob/master/asdl/NINJA_subgr...

Some more description - https://lobste.rs/s/qnb7xt/ninja_is_enough_build_system#c_tu...

This is sort of a category error...

re2c is a lexer generator, and YAML and Python are recursive/nested formats.

You can definitely use re2c to lex them, but it's not the whole solution.

I use it for everything possible in https://www.oilshell.org, and it's amazing. It really reduces the amount of fiddly C code you need to parse languages, and it drops in anywhere.

SEEKING VOLUNTEERS - https://www.oilshell.org/ - https://github.com/oilshell/oil/

I'm looking for people to help fill out the "standard library" for Oils/YSH. We're implementing a shell for Python and JavaScript programmers who avoid shell!

On the surface, this is writing some very simple functions in typed Python. But I've realized that the hardest parts are specifying, TESTING, and documenting what the functions do.

---

The most recent release announcement also asks for help - https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2024/01/release-0.19.0.html (long)

If you find all those details interesting (if maybe overwhelming), you might have a mind for language design, and could be a good person to help.

Surveying what Python and JavaScript do is very helpful, e.g. for the recent Str.replace() function, which is nontrivial (takes a regex or string, replacement template or string)

But there are also very simple methods to get started, like Dict.values() and List.indexOf(). Other people have already contributed code. Examples:

https://github.com/oilshell/oil/commit/58d847008427dba2e60fe...

https://github.com/oilshell/oil/commit/8f38ee36d01162593e935...

This can also be useful to tell if you'll have fun working on the project - https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/Where-Contributors-Have...

More on #help-wanted on Zulip (requires login) - https://oilshell.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/417617-help-wa...

Please send a message on Github or Zulip! Or e-mail me andy at oilshell dot org.

This is true, but then the corrolary is that new PRs need to come with this higher and rigorous level of test coverage.

And then that becomes a bit of a barrier to contribution -- that's a harness

I often write entirely new test harnesses for features, e.g. for https://www.oilshell.org, many of them linked here . All of these run in the CI - https://www.oilshell.org/release/latest/quality.html

The good thing is that it definitely helps me accept PRs faster. Current contributors are good at this kind of exhaustive testing, but many PRs aren't