clisp | Petalisp | |
---|---|---|
8 | 17 | |
- | 425 | |
- | - | |
- | 8.5 | |
- | about 2 months ago | |
Common Lisp | ||
- | GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 |
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.
clisp
-
Common Lisp Implementations in 2023
One should note that while it is true that the last CLISP release was a long time ago and there is not a lot of development going on right now, it's not dead. Bruno Haible just commited last week.
The repository is now at https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp
-
Common Lisp implementations in 2023
CLISP is maintained here: https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/-/commits/master
-
clisp-head from Roswell now has support for package-local nicknames
Roswell has switched its clisp-head to be built from https://github.com/roswell/clisp/ which is based on the commits from CLISP's canonical repository along with patches which add package-local nicknames to it.
-
roswell (21.10.14.111-1): clisp-head support
Oh dang, there is new development on clisp! I had to do some digging to find [the repo](https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp), but it looks like the latest commit even adds support for MacOS on ARM.
- Package local nicknames: don't use with quicklisp-targeted packages?
-
SICL: A New Common Lisp Implementation
> phoe got package local nicknames into all implementations
Unfortunately it's not yet in Clisp. I submitted a merge request[1] a year ago, but it's been silent since then.
[1]: https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/-/merge_requests/3
-
Common lisp or Racket as a first lisp?
Quick note, CLISP is actually an implementation of Common Lisp, and as such isn't used as an abbreviation for Common Lisp the language. Could you expand on what you mean w.r.t to package managers? As far as getting up and running with a CL environment, Portacle makes this pretty easy now.
Petalisp
- Petalisp: Elegant High Performance Computing
- Is there a tutorial for automatic differentiation with petalisp?
-
Is there a language with lisp syntax but C semantics?
While not "as fast as C" (C is not the absolute pinnacle of performance), Common Lisp is incredibly fast compared to the majority of programming languages around today. There is even a huge amount of ongoing work being done to make it faster still. We are seeing many interesting projects that make better use of the hardware in your computer (e.g. https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp).
-
Common Lisp Implementations in 2023
i think lisp-stat library is actually being developed. however one numerical cl library that doesnt get enough mention and is being constantly developed is petalisp for HPC
https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp
-
numericals - Performance of NumPy with the goodness of Common Lisp
However, if you have a lisp library that puts those semantics to use, then you could get it to employ magicl/ext-blas and cl-bmas to speed it up. (petalisp looks relevant, but I lack the background to compare it with APL.)
-
New Lisp-Stat Release
> his means cl pagckages can be "done".
this is true if there is nothing functional that can be added to a package. however its very much not true for ml frameworks right now. new things are being added all the time in the field. however even in the package i linked you have the necessary ingredients for any deep learning model: cuda and back propagation. the other person mentioned convolution which i think is pretty trivial to implement but still, if you expect everything for you to be ready made then you should probably stick to tf and pytorch. if you want to explore the cutting edge and push the boundaries then i think common lisp is a good tool. as an aside it might also be interesting to note that a common lisp package (Petalisp) is being used for high performance computing by a german university
https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp
- The Julia language has a number of correctness flaws
-
When a young programmer who has been using C for several years is convinced that C is the best possible programming language and that people who don't prefer it just haven't use it enough, what is the best argument for Lisp vs C, given that they're already convinced in favor of C?
One trick is that Common Lisp can generate and compile code at runtime, whereas static languages typically do not have a compiler available at runtime. This lets you make your own lazy person's JIT/staged compiler, which is useful if some part of the problem is not known at compile-time. Such an approach has been used at least for array munging, type munging and regular expression munging.