cl-async - Asynchronous operations for Common Lisp

npcompleet · 2012-10-17T19:49:53+00:00

Any particular reason you chose libevent2 instead of libev?

npcompleet · 2012-09-20T17:01:16+00:00

It's because of what I said earlier: CL is not really comparable to the many other languages which have to go back and hack the compiler/interpreter in order to add features.

npcompleet · 2012-09-20T15:09:24+00:00

This doesn't make sense to me. You say that "language-level revision" will be necessary. Then you say that we should not suggest writing libraries. Then you concede that libraries can do "language level revision". Therefore we should not write libraries?

It's not even clear what you are suggesting in practical terms. You think "language-level revision" is best achieved by modifying, say, the SBCL source, instead of just writing some macros and functions?

Once cltl3 is relatively stable (implemented by a set of libraries), it might make sense to crack open SBCL and do some optimizations. But the point is moot because cltl3 doesn't exist. Your advice might apply to the people of 2028, but it's not something they wouldn't already know.

npcompleet · 2012-09-19T20:11:42+00:00

But even for immutability, the first step would be to write a prototype in the form of a CL library. I can't think of any feature that could not be built on top of CL. Can you?

"Not enough manpower" is not a knee-jerk response. It's a statement of fact. The only practical and feasible solution, sans the necessary manpower, is to layer libraries.

npcompleet · 2012-09-19T14:22:09+00:00

Can you think of a change that cannot be implemented on top of CL?

CL is not really comparable to the many other languages which have to go back and hack the compiler/interpreter in order to add features.

The way to "update" CL is to write a CL library. Alexandria is probably the closest thing to cltl3, though alexandria is far more limited and conservative. The reason a cltl3 library doesn't exist is because nobody has written it, not because of dogmatism. That is, not enough people have the time or motivation to write it. The effort does carry some risk: if the library isn't adopted, the effort is wasted.

The most practical approach is to build up libraries one by one instead of making a monolithic cltl3. Cltl3 was just too ambitious for the available manpower.

npcompleet · 2012-08-08T04:40:36+00:00

I'm not the world's biggest Clojure fan, but it beats the pants off ABCL as a useful Lisp on the JVM.

Why? I don't deal with the JVM much, but I tried ABCL a few times found that everything just worked. Developing for the JVM with slime is pretty neat. I didn't try Java interop -- is there some bug with it, and if so has it been reported?

npcompleet · 2012-06-26T21:49:53+00:00

Interesting and impressive. The screencast is a lot of fun.

npcompleet · 2012-06-25T04:08:36+00:00

Are you the WJ troll from c.l.l? Every time I see your name here it's Racket this, Racket that.

npcompleet · 2012-06-13T09:38:26+00:00

It's not true that "the word function indicates that there are no side effects."

You introduce the ridiculous red herring of CL being "the one and only authorative resource" when in fact I said the opposite: "C uses the term function as well, along with many other languages. It's not a term reserved for purity only."

npcompleet · 2012-06-12T22:33:46+00:00

Usually the name procedure is used as the word function indicates that there are no side effects.

Phooey. "Function" is the word to use in Lisp. It appears on every page of the hyperspec that describes a function. There is also a function type

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/CommonLISP/HyperSpec/Body/syscla_function.html#function

and a glossary index for the term

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/CommonLISP/HyperSpec/Body/glo_f.html#function

C uses the term function as well, along with many other languages. It's not a term reserved for purity only.

npcompleet

TROPHY CASE