Hyperpolyglot Lisp: Common Lisp, Racket, Clojure, Emacs Lisp
73 points by veqq 3 hours ago | 12 comments
sinsudo 2 hours ago
I know that the purpose of the page is to compare syntax of common lisp, racket, clojure, and emacs lisp.
But some examples could be more idiomatic, for instance instead of
reply (defun add (a &rest b)
(if (null b)
a
(+ a (eval (cons '+ b)))))
One should avoid eval and use endp instead of null: (defun add (a &rest b)
(if (endp b) a
(apply #'add (+ a (first b)) (rest b))))sinsudo 45 minutes ago
The page indicates that there is not function for documentation in common lisp, but
reply (documentation 'documentation 'function)
"Return the documentation string of Doc-Type for X, or NIL if none
exists.
System doc-types are VARIABLE, FUNCTION, STRUCTURE, TYPE, SETF, and T.
Also http://rosettacode.org for computer tasks implemented in many computer languages to allow you compare syntax and code.ethagnawl 2 hours ago
This is really neat.
replySomething I've been meaning to do is try putting together a cross-lisp package manager -- if only because it'd be fun. Maybe it would favor code that could be readily run or eval'd or maybe with some sort of clj/cljs type dynamic dispatch for anything implementation specific.
arikrahman 2 hours ago
Would be interesting to see how Jank is coming along in this space as well.
replyecto 2 hours ago
Great chrestomathy! I opened a PR for my lisp, Loon: https://github.com/clarkgrubb/hyperpolyglot/pull/139
replyFergusArgyll 14 minutes ago
As someone who's not a programmer but has beginner - medium python & C skills. I'm in middle of learning lisp (elisp to be precise) and it feels like reading poetry. It's a transcendent experience that's hard to explain. Such beautiful concepts. Everything flows in a way it doesn't in C based langs
replyeamonnsullivan 2 hours ago
Clojure 1.6, Emacs 24.5... These are pretty old versions, at least of those.
replyFrustratedMonky 17 minutes ago
Nice comparison.
replyBut makes me think we'd be better off if we all just focused on a single one, and grew it, made it better. Not having 4 versions of something almost identical. Fragmentation can hurt adoption.
- why nothing on the "compiler" line? Everytime you load a snippet or a file with SBCL, it compiles it (to machine code). There's also compile-file.
- interpreter: likewise, all code is compiled by default with SBCL, not interpreted, even in the REPL. To use the interpreter, we must do this: https://github.com/lisp-tips/lisp-tips/issues/52
- command line program: the racket cell shows the use of -e (eval), the same can be done with any CL implementation.
- since the string split line introduces cl-ppcre, one could mention cl-str :D (plug) (much terser join, trim, concat etc)
- ah ok, for dates and times, flattening a list, hash-table literals… we need more libraries.
- more files operations: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/files.html
- emacs buffers: now compare with Lem buffers 8-)
- posix-getenv: I'd rather use uiop:getenv (comes in implementations).
- uiop:*command-line-arguments*
- exit: uiop:quit
- uiop:run-program (sync) / launch-program (async)
- java interop: with LispWorks or ABCL (or other libraries)
my 2c