defstar VS clog

there is also https://github.com/lisp-maintainers/defstar for providing more ergonomic type declarations inline in definitions

And this is another thing I'm not sure how to explain, I thought CL is surely more verbose and ugly than python for small scripts, but maybe it's macros will make it cleaner for building large systems. But then when I started writing actual programs, even small programs without any of my own macros, I generally use about 30% less LoC than in python... I've thought about making sly/slime like support for python (built on ipython with autoreload extension) or ruby (with it's fairly new low-overhead debug gem). But at the end of the day support for these things will always be incomplete and a hack compared to CL where it was designed from the start to support it, they run 20-100x slower than CL, and imo their runtime metaprogramming is harder to reason about than CL which is mostly compile time metaprogramming. When I've had to dig into some CL library, which is a lot more often than in those languages because it has 10000x fewer users so of course I will be first to run into some issue, it has generally been easy to understand what is going on and fix it, compared to large codebases in other languages.

Regarding "modern type-safe language", languages with expressive type systems, rust, ocaml, haskell, typescript, etc, can give really confusing type errors, when you get into generics and traits and more expressive stuff. I'm not convinced it's a better development experience than a dynamically typed languages where values have simple types, and when you get a type error you see the actual contents of the variable that is the wrong type and state of the program, at least in the case of CL where the stack isn't unwound on error and runtime is kind of compile-time as you're running all code as you write it. But mostly this sort of interactive development is very hard to implement in static languages, I'm not aware of any that does it. For example even in static langs like ocaml that have a repl through a bytecode interpreter, simple things don't work like say you pass some function as an event handler, and then update the function. As you passed efectively a function pointer to the old definition, rather than a symbol name like lisp, it will be calling the original function not the new version. But the main issue is that efficient staticly typed languages the type system is all at compile time, type information doesn't exist at runtime, which is great for performance, but means you don't get the ability to introspect on your running program like you do in CL and elixir, which personally I value more than full compile-time type checking.

Would I like some new language or heavy modification of existing language runtime that provides the best of everything? of course, but I also realize that it's a huge amount of work and won't happen with 10 years, while I can have a nice experience hacking away in CL and emacs right now. And ultimately CL is an extremely flexible language and I think it'll be less work to build on CL than to provide a CL like runtime for some other language. For example projects really pushing the edge there is Coalton described above. While personally I prefer dynamicly typed for general application programming I think Coalton could be great for compilers, parsing some protocol, or writing some subparts of your program in. And vernacular (https://github.com/ruricolist/vernacular) which explores bringing racket's lang and macro system to CL. For more standard CL code, using extremely common and widely used libraries like alexandria, serapeum, trivia, etc, already makes CL into a fairly modern and ergonomic language to write.

> both are dynamic languages with types added later in?

Common Lisp has always had types and type declarations (e.g. `the` in the hyperspec[1]) as it's part of the specification. It was not added later as far as I know.

However, `declaim` and `declare` were left very underspecified so they tend to be very implementation-specific, though there are libraries that make types more portable[2][3].

[1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/s_the....

[2] https://github.com/lisp-maintainers/defstar

[3] https://github.com/ruricolist/serapeum/blob/master/REFERENCE...

Like defstar? https://github.com/lisp-maintainers/defstar Type declarations that you can place inside the defun. Also serapeum:-> (atop the defun). Or Coalton: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/ But it's possible you'll feel much less a need for that in CL.

Hi, if you plan to work on enhancing the library (glad to here!): you can fork the repository to your github username, decide that you will be able to maintain for the foreseeable future and ask Quicklisp to point defstrar to your repository. You can create a defstar org on github, so you could easily give push access to future maintainers. Or, you could ask for write access here: https://github.com/lisp-maintainers/defstar it's an un-official org that I created in the hope to maintain orphan projects collectively. You can send PRs or ask for push access. There is no current maintainer for this project, it is not pointed to by QL, it is only a Github mirror. Best,

agreed^^ there are macros and libraries to bring a nicer syntax (of course). Exple: https://github.com/lisp-maintainers/defstar

   (defun\* (sum -> real) ((a real) (b real))

Reminds me of the approach of CLOG (Common Lisp Omnificent Gui[1]) and its ancestor GNOGA (The GNU Omnificent GUI for Ada[2]).

They also integrate basic components and even graphical UI editor (at least for CLOG), so you can essentially develop the whole thing from inside CL or Ada

[1] https://github.com/rabbibotton/clog

[2] https://github.com/alire-project/gnoga

For me David Botton [0] with his work including code, support and videos is doing very nice work in this direction.

I use SBCL for everything but work because I cannot get; we are getting there, but like you say, it’s such a nice experience working interactively building fast that it is magic and it’s painful returning to my daily work of Python and typescript/react. It feels like a waste of time/life, really.

[0] https://github.com/rabbibotton/clog

I was following along on the Windows page and didn't check back on the main README to see if any of the other instructions would help.

It the answer is "latter", then you could look at Common Lisp and Reblocks (https://40ants.com/reblocks/) or CLOG (https://github.com/rabbibotton/clog).

I haven't used Clojure professionally in 10 years so with a grain of salt here are my thoughts as only one other person answered...

CL over Clojure: it's the OG Lisp that the creator of Clojure used and wanted to continue using but faced too much resistance from management afraid of anything not-Java/not-Oracle, or not-CLR/not-Microsoft, etc. Clojure shipped originally as "just another jar" so devs could "sneak" it in. If you don't have such a management restriction, why Clojure? If you want to integrate CL with the JVM, you can use the ABCL implementation, there's also something from one of the proprietary Lisps. Some useful CL features that are nice in this domain: conditions and restarts mentioned in a sibling comment (very nice to help interactively develop/debug e.g. a selenium webdriver test), ability to easily compile an exe (perhaps useful for microservices, or just to keep your deployment environment clean and not having to care about Lisp), and ability to easily ship with an open local socket allowing you to SSH in (or SSH port forward) and debug/fix/poke around in production (JVM of course lets you attach debuggers to a running process, even certain billion+ dollar companies will have supervised/limited prod debugging sessions for various hairy cases, but it's not as interactive). You should never hear CL advocates claim you can't scale to large teams/groups of engineers or large multi-million-lines sized projects, though you might oddly hear Clojure advocates sometimes claim you can't (and shouldn't) scale to such large projects -- large groups of engineers are a non-issue for them as well though, the challenge is in hiring, not in the language somehow making it impossible to modularize and keep people from stepping on each other.

Clojure over CL: its integration with the JVM is nicer than ABCL's, so if you do actually want a lot of the great world of Java stuff, it's easier to get at. Database integration libraries are better. Access to libs (Clojure or Java) is via Maven, so it's a larger ecosystem with more self-integrating components (especially around monitoring/metrics) than what's available for Lisp via Quicklisp. Clojure is very opinionated, much of it quite tasteful, and that gives the whole ecosystem a certain consistency. (You can have immutable data structures in CL, you can if you want use [] for literal vectors and make them syntactically important e.g. in let bindings, but not everyone will be on board.) Even though its popularity seems to have stopped growing, at least at the same rate as e.g. Go which it was keeping pace with for a while, it's still popular enough with a bigger community; as a proxy measure there are multiple conferences around the world and good talks at adjacent conferences, whereas Lisp mostly just has one conference in Europe per year and only occasional branching outside of that.

If you're doing a client-side-heavy webapp, ClojureScript is still amazing, CL's answers there aren't very compelling with the exception of CLOG (https://github.com/rabbibotton/clog) which takes an entirely different direction than the usual idea of translating/running Lisp on top of JavaScript and its popular frameworks.