ulisp
coalton
Our great sponsors
ulisp | coalton | |
---|---|---|
33 | 84 | |
361 | 991 | |
- | 4.1% | |
2.6 | 8.4 | |
about 1 year ago | about 1 hour ago | |
C++ | Common Lisp | |
MIT License | 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.
ulisp
- How to Write a (Lisp) Interpreter (In Python)
- Show HN: I Made a Lisp
-
Lisp Badge LE
I love his projects too. He's also the creator of uLisp.
http://www.ulisp.com/
-
Lisp in Space
Not CL, but there is ulisp (http://www.ulisp.com/) for microcontrollers, supposed to be really tiny, and there is Carp (https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp) which is without a GC so seems suitable for real-time stuff.
- uLisp: Lisp for Microcontrollers
-
fe: A tiny, embeddable language implemented in ANSI C
There's also ulisp (for Arduino projects etc.): http://www.ulisp.com/
This is larger, because there are functions for accessing peripherals, and the core is more standard lispy with 'caadr' et.al., and it has a compacting GC, so images can be saved as a compact blob.
- ¿Any interpreted lenguage working in low memory microcontrollers?
-
Anyone tried to run ECL on a Pi Pico?
You might consider uLisp, it's very Common Lispy for the memory constraints given (sans macros and splicing quote). And you can still connect to it and save an image. I've tried it and it works well enough. Here is the homepage.
- Scamp – a self-contained Forth computer
-
What do you think of Forth?
Agreed - the interactivity is good. Lisp is close (have you seen http://www.ulisp.com/ - I can't believe they got into into that small a target!). Python is ok, but for some reason I don't use the REPL in the same way I do in Forth - I think calling functions is just harder somehow. Mostly is exploring valves from the Python REPL.
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
https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton
-
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?
ecl
awesome-lisp-companies - Awesome Lisp Companies
Lua-RTOS-ESP32 - Lua RTOS for ESP32
hackett - WIP implementation of a Haskell-like Lisp in Racket
ferret - Ferret is a free software lisp implementation for real time embedded control systems.
paip-lisp - Lisp code for the textbook "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming"
lispBM - An interpreter for a concurrent lisp-like language with message-passing and pattern-matching implemented in C.
racket - The Racket repository
tinyscheme - TinyScheme is easy to learn and modify. It is structured like a meta-interpreter, only it is written in C.
phel-lang - Phel is a functional programming language that transpiles to PHP. A Lisp dialect inspired by Clojure and Janet.
quickjs-esp32 - QuickJS port for ESP32
cl-cookbook - The Common Lisp Cookbook