Our great sponsors
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
Check out Portacle [1], or if you already are rocking Emacs and SBCL and just want the bare minimum dot-emacs to kick around Lisp, check out emacs4cl [2]. There is an older project called "Lisp In A Box", but it hasn't been kept up to date so most beginners start with Portacle these days.
Check out Portacle [1], or if you already are rocking Emacs and SBCL and just want the bare minimum dot-emacs to kick around Lisp, check out emacs4cl [2]. There is an older project called "Lisp In A Box", but it hasn't been kept up to date so most beginners start with Portacle these days.
I invite you to read https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/Hopl2.pdf which was submitted for the History of Programming Languages conference. I don't see how you can say with a straight face that no one rallied around Common Lisp given knowledge of Lisp history.
I'm not sure what you mean by "no canonical implementation" -- there's the ANSI Common Lisp standard, of which there are multiple implementations. Is this somehow a bad thing to you?
> Lispers love to say "Lisp is a family of related languages"
Not really. I think it's slightly more common for Scheme or Clojure programmers to claim Lisp relations, but it's just advertising. If having s-expression-ish syntax (with nothing being compatible to CL like a real Lisp dialect would be, and was given how much code in pre-CL Lisps could be run in CL unmodified) makes it part of the "Lisp family", then why not speak of the ALGOL family? It's tiresome semantics and from what I've read Common Lispers at least don't tend to do it.
> There's just no ecosystem of reliable, standard-ish packages.
Here's everything on Quicklisp: https://sabracrolleton.github.io/short-descriptions and a curated list: https://github.com/CodyReichert/awesome-cl
Yes, it's not as impressive as Maven. Yes, not everything is as well-documented as, say, PyGame (http://www.pygame.org/docs/). Yes, some things are broken, or even abandoned, though in the latter case it may just be that they're "done" pending anyone coming up with a new issue or feature request. I've happily used web scraping libs to save my HN comments with their context, there's a good Twitter API lib I moved to when something broke the Python one I was previously using, I've orchestrated Selenium, I generated some FFI bindings to FMOD and had it working within a few minutes... My point here is just that there is an ecosystem for CL, and many things are reliable, when something works it's rare to stop working.
Sorry about your GPIO experience, it happens, I had a bad experience trying to quickload a library that depended on iolib which opaquely depends on a custom C library the author also made and is not in my distro's package manager. I'm not sure what you mean by "standard-ish" -- is Python's urllib3 "standard-ish"? What about urllib and urllib2? Do they qualify merely by being part of the standard library, or is it something else?
You're right though that what does exist is small and limited, and that's a natural limiting factor, far more I think that what editors are available or easy to use. Quicklisp came about way too late. Yet the ecosystem continues to grow, so maybe you'll be willing to give it another chance in another 10 years.
Eh, it's debatable. CL has got (github usernames) Shinmera, Fukamachi, ruricolist, edicl, among many others (I have to stop my list somewhere). There are some collectives that work on a handful of projects together too. What would help is more word about contributions that already exist -- blog posts (or if possible additions to the Lisp Cookbook (https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/)) and StackOverflow and so on. sabracrolleton has some amazing work for instance cataloging and comparing e.g. the various logging frameworks, test frameworks, json parsers, and more. (Example: https://sabracrolleton.github.io/logging-comparison.html) More of that I think will be more helpful than more tentpole devs, and more ways for Common Lispers to communicate what's out there even to themselves. A lot of unmentioned people are doing heroic work on those fronts already. Another thing that would help is just a critical mass of devs working in a similar area at the same time, but getting such critical masses is its own problem.
A lot has gone wrong in terms of achieving high adoption, but specifically about something going wrong with rallying around CL, I don't think anything went wrong. No more are Maclisp, Interlisp, Lisp Machine Lisp, Zetalisp, Franz Lisp, Portable Standard Lisp, Spice Lisp... They were all slain or subsumed by Common Lisp. (You might have seen Franz elsewhere in this thread; rather than continuing it Franz, Inc. just developed Allegro Common Lisp separately. Spice Lisp meanwhile changed to become a CL implementation, became CMUCL, which was later forked into the now most popular implementation SBCL.)
Le Lisp/ISLisp are interesting European competition that didn't fall in line, but I don't ever hear about them, I only know they exist/existed, they might nowadays be effectively dead for all I know. Emacs Lisp is probably the biggest success in not caving to CL. Not big enough to constitute anything "going wrong" though.
I think your perception is wrong in two ways. First is the idea that Scheme and Clojure are somehow "variants" or "dialects" of Lisp. Scheme was never a Lisp dialect, it was instead described as a "Lisp-like". Also notice neither Scheme nor Clojure even have "Lisp" in their name, unlike all those other languages that got eaten by CL. "Lisp" meant something, and "Common Lisp" unified that meaning and I think deserves to be synonymous with "Lisp"; many writers have treated it that way. But Common Lispers are giving up that fight, because it's tiresome but also an understandable confusion not helped by Scheme or Clojure's attempts at capitalizing on some primordial idea about the good name of Lisp or whatever drives them to associate with the term. (#lisp in Freenode used to be only for Common Lisp, now in Libera #lisp is for all Lisp-likes and CL has its own channel.) Anyway, Scheme and Clojure have happily had their own evolution and separate largely incompatible s-expressions. I don't think their continued existence is a flaw against CL any more than another random programming language would be. One aspect of Clojure that might sting a little is that its entire reason for existing was because the author couldn't win political fights about having CL in production instead of the JVM.
The second way I disagree with your perspective is on prevalence. Scheme has had some success in teaching (mostly thanks to SICP) though Common Lisp was/is also used similarly at various places, however I think that's hurt [Common] Lisp more than anything. (Basically CL gets taught like Scheme, and so whether CL or Scheme is used students come away thinking they "know Lisp" without ever really having seen its OOP power, its handling of types, its condition system, its easy-to-define macros, let alone the trivial things like LOOP or SETF that make imperative programming possible and easy. It's like C++ classes that teach it as C-with-classes, but worse.) Scheme has also had success as GNU's official extension language (with Guile, which goes a ways beyond standard Scheme to be useful) and you see Scheme pop up in places like GIMP plugins. Racket is the most successful modern Scheme, but it has gone waaaay beyond standard Scheme and slowly seems to be becoming as large as CL. Real stuff is made with it, not just education stuff, but I'm less familiar with what's going on. It may yet eat CL's lunch.
Clojure of course has been a rising star and has enjoyed a lot of success in real stuff. It's popular, it's fashionable, and in terms of projects-per-second your perception is probably right that it's more widely used than CL right now. Where I would draw disagreement is in total pound-for-pound code that's Out There. CL has the benefit of decades of existence, so for example https://www.ptc.com/en/products/creo/elements-direct has been developed for a long time and is made of several million lines of CL code, and that's just one project. If you only used "active" (i.e. someone executed it over last month) code perhaps there's enough Clojure out there now to be an interesting race though there's no way to really tell; if you allow for all the CL that has been written and is no longer run, I don't think there's any contest, CL has such a rich history. (A random application being Mirai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirai_(software) with demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IRsYGfr4jo -- has there ever been a 3D modeling program written in Clojure? Will there ever be?)
https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies is an ongoing collection of companies known to be using CL. In terms of "industries", right now quantum computing companies seem particularly drawn to CL. Symbolic math historically also, with Maxima and Axiom being modern still-working/developed code bases. (The latter is a million lines of literate CL.)
But drawing on legacy again rather than last-few-years stuff, an old quote by Kent Pitman seems relevant: "Please don't assume Lisp is only useful for Animation and Graphics, AI, Bioinformatics, B2B and E-Commerce, Data Mining, EDA/Semiconductor applications, Expert Systems, Finance, Intelligent Agents, Knowledge Management, Mechanical CAD, Modeling and Simulation, Natural Language, Optimization, Research, Risk Analysis, Scheduling, Telecom, and Web Authoring just because these are the only things they happened to list." We can of course add more things to the list if that would help, like Mars Rovers or video games, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9510945 has a few more, in recent news I learned about https://www.reddit.com/r/Common_Lisp/comments/osnsgz/intels_... and https://github.com/shop-planner/shop3 was open-sourced in 2019. Lisp is in a lot of places all over the world (it's had quite a legacy in Japan even), but not the most fashionable stuff, so it's also understandable that many people haven't heard about it, realized they're using it, or heard people talking about it.
A lot has gone wrong in terms of achieving high adoption, but specifically about something going wrong with rallying around CL, I don't think anything went wrong. No more are Maclisp, Interlisp, Lisp Machine Lisp, Zetalisp, Franz Lisp, Portable Standard Lisp, Spice Lisp... They were all slain or subsumed by Common Lisp. (You might have seen Franz elsewhere in this thread; rather than continuing it Franz, Inc. just developed Allegro Common Lisp separately. Spice Lisp meanwhile changed to become a CL implementation, became CMUCL, which was later forked into the now most popular implementation SBCL.)
Le Lisp/ISLisp are interesting European competition that didn't fall in line, but I don't ever hear about them, I only know they exist/existed, they might nowadays be effectively dead for all I know. Emacs Lisp is probably the biggest success in not caving to CL. Not big enough to constitute anything "going wrong" though.
I think your perception is wrong in two ways. First is the idea that Scheme and Clojure are somehow "variants" or "dialects" of Lisp. Scheme was never a Lisp dialect, it was instead described as a "Lisp-like". Also notice neither Scheme nor Clojure even have "Lisp" in their name, unlike all those other languages that got eaten by CL. "Lisp" meant something, and "Common Lisp" unified that meaning and I think deserves to be synonymous with "Lisp"; many writers have treated it that way. But Common Lispers are giving up that fight, because it's tiresome but also an understandable confusion not helped by Scheme or Clojure's attempts at capitalizing on some primordial idea about the good name of Lisp or whatever drives them to associate with the term. (#lisp in Freenode used to be only for Common Lisp, now in Libera #lisp is for all Lisp-likes and CL has its own channel.) Anyway, Scheme and Clojure have happily had their own evolution and separate largely incompatible s-expressions. I don't think their continued existence is a flaw against CL any more than another random programming language would be. One aspect of Clojure that might sting a little is that its entire reason for existing was because the author couldn't win political fights about having CL in production instead of the JVM.
The second way I disagree with your perspective is on prevalence. Scheme has had some success in teaching (mostly thanks to SICP) though Common Lisp was/is also used similarly at various places, however I think that's hurt [Common] Lisp more than anything. (Basically CL gets taught like Scheme, and so whether CL or Scheme is used students come away thinking they "know Lisp" without ever really having seen its OOP power, its handling of types, its condition system, its easy-to-define macros, let alone the trivial things like LOOP or SETF that make imperative programming possible and easy. It's like C++ classes that teach it as C-with-classes, but worse.) Scheme has also had success as GNU's official extension language (with Guile, which goes a ways beyond standard Scheme to be useful) and you see Scheme pop up in places like GIMP plugins. Racket is the most successful modern Scheme, but it has gone waaaay beyond standard Scheme and slowly seems to be becoming as large as CL. Real stuff is made with it, not just education stuff, but I'm less familiar with what's going on. It may yet eat CL's lunch.
Clojure of course has been a rising star and has enjoyed a lot of success in real stuff. It's popular, it's fashionable, and in terms of projects-per-second your perception is probably right that it's more widely used than CL right now. Where I would draw disagreement is in total pound-for-pound code that's Out There. CL has the benefit of decades of existence, so for example https://www.ptc.com/en/products/creo/elements-direct has been developed for a long time and is made of several million lines of CL code, and that's just one project. If you only used "active" (i.e. someone executed it over last month) code perhaps there's enough Clojure out there now to be an interesting race though there's no way to really tell; if you allow for all the CL that has been written and is no longer run, I don't think there's any contest, CL has such a rich history. (A random application being Mirai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirai_(software) with demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IRsYGfr4jo -- has there ever been a 3D modeling program written in Clojure? Will there ever be?)
https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies is an ongoing collection of companies known to be using CL. In terms of "industries", right now quantum computing companies seem particularly drawn to CL. Symbolic math historically also, with Maxima and Axiom being modern still-working/developed code bases. (The latter is a million lines of literate CL.)
But drawing on legacy again rather than last-few-years stuff, an old quote by Kent Pitman seems relevant: "Please don't assume Lisp is only useful for Animation and Graphics, AI, Bioinformatics, B2B and E-Commerce, Data Mining, EDA/Semiconductor applications, Expert Systems, Finance, Intelligent Agents, Knowledge Management, Mechanical CAD, Modeling and Simulation, Natural Language, Optimization, Research, Risk Analysis, Scheduling, Telecom, and Web Authoring just because these are the only things they happened to list." We can of course add more things to the list if that would help, like Mars Rovers or video games, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9510945 has a few more, in recent news I learned about https://www.reddit.com/r/Common_Lisp/comments/osnsgz/intels_... and https://github.com/shop-planner/shop3 was open-sourced in 2019. Lisp is in a lot of places all over the world (it's had quite a legacy in Japan even), but not the most fashionable stuff, so it's also understandable that many people haven't heard about it, realized they're using it, or heard people talking about it.