Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: my understanding of an algebra library for lisp
Next: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real world programming ?
From: Elena on 11 Jun 2010 17:44 On 11 Giu, 20:03, Chris Hulan <chris.hu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Haven't used it but Racket (http://racket-lang.org/) looks to be a new > and improved Scheme I have checked it out and I don't recommend it to others. Racket is not Scheme anymore (it can't use SLIB, which relies on common Scheme facilities). Racket is a language and an environment on their own. For instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE, therefore you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice. Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much more than that.
From: Sam TH on 11 Jun 2010 21:27 [cross-posts snipped] On Jun 11, 5:44 pm, Elena <egarr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 Giu, 20:03, Chris Hulan <chris.hu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Haven't used it but Racket (http://racket-lang.org/) looks to be a new > > and improved Scheme > Racket is not Scheme anymore (it can't use SLIB, which relies on > common Scheme facilities). While SLIB is hard to run in Racket, Racket comes with a comprehensive library (see http://docs.racket-lang.org) which provides much of the specific functionality of SLIB as well as much more besides. Contributions of missing libraries are more than welcome. Additionally, the original question asked for a LISP for real-world programming, a category in which Racket excels, rather than an SLIB host. > Racket is a language and an environment on > their own. For instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE, > therefore you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice. This is not the case. See the documentation for the errortrace library [1] for information on how to use it. As befits an IDE, it's able to provide additional debugging facilities, but they are not required. > Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much more > than that. Many people, including core Racket developers, work primarily via the REPL outside of DrRacket. [1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/errortrace
From: tfgordon on 12 Jun 2010 02:25 Consider Clojure: http://clojure.org/ You might want to watch one of these videos for an overview: http://clojure.blip.tv/ There is also evidence that Clojure is currently the most popular Lisp, more "popular" than Scheme or Common Lisp, whatever that means: http://www.google.com/trends?q=common+lisp,+scheme+language,+clojure -Tom G.
From: Elena on 12 Jun 2010 06:34 On 12 Giu, 03:27, Sam TH <sam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > While SLIB is hard to run in Racket, Racket comes with a comprehensive > library (seehttp://docs.racket-lang.org) which provides much of the > specific functionality of SLIB as well as much more besides. > Contributions of missing libraries are more than welcome. > > Additionally, the original question asked for a LISP for real-world > programming, a category in which Racket excels, rather than an SLIB > host. My arguments were against the assumption that Racket is a super set of Scheme. It is not, since it lacks common Scheme facilities (required by SLIB). Racket has a comprehensive library, that's for sure, but why would you throw away libraries which were already there? > > Racket is a language and an environment on > > their own. For instance: debugging facilities are hidden into its IDE, > > therefore you'll have to leave your debugging environment of choice. > > This is not the case. See the documentation for the errortrace > library [1] for information on how to use it. As befits an IDE, it's > able to provide additional debugging facilities, but they are not > required. If the environment were open, why would some facilities be hidden in its tools? Among other things, you can't single step Racket outside of DrRacket. That sounds as a closed environment to me. > > Yes, you can run a REpL outside of its IDE, but you can't do much more > > than that. > > Many people, including core Racket developers, work primarily via the > REPL outside of DrRacket. I guess those people must not maintain code written by people outside their team. Cheers.
From: bolega on 12 Jun 2010 13:36
On Jun 12, 2:02 am, "Antti \"Andy\" Ylikoski" <antti.yliko...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 10.6.2010 23:14, bolega kirjoitti: > > > > > Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languages for real > > world programming ? > > >http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation > > > Kindly pick one from commercial and one from open-source . > > > The criteria is : > > > libraries, gui interface and builder, libraries for TCP, and evolving > > needs. > > > Please compare LISP and its virtues with other languages such as > > javascript, python etc. > > > I put javascript in the context that it is very similar in its > > architecture (homoiconic ie same representation for data-structures > > and operations, ie hierarchical, which means nested-lists<=> n-ary > > tree<=> binary tree<=> linked-list<=> dictionary<=> task-subtask, > > and implicitly based on what C calls pointers, and at machine level > > the indirect addressing of memory) to lisp family. > > > I put python in the context that it has the most extensive libraries > > and shares the build-fix virtue of lisp highlighted by Paul Graham in > > his books. Python is touted for its rapid prototyping of guis. It > > syntax enforces stable format which guards against programmer malice > > or sloppiness - so that there is a certain level of legacy code > > readability. > > > Both have eval but not clear what is the implementation efficiency to > > justify the habit of excessively using it. > > > Certainly, lisp/scheme are excellent for learning the concepts of > > programming languages due to its multi-paradigm nature and readily > > available code of the elementary interpreter. > > > Is there an IDE for these lispish-scheming languages ? Is there > > quality implementation for Eclipse ? Emacs pre-supposes some knowledge > > of these so that newbie can get stuck. Also, emacs help is not very > > good. > > > Is there a project whereby the internal help of emacs (analogous to > > its man pages) are being continuously being updated AND shared ? I > > have never seen updates to the help. Perhaps, the commercial people > > are doing it, even from the posts of the newsgroups, but the public > > distros or these newsgroups have NEVER made such an announcement. > > > Explanations integrated into the help are more important than the > > books - its like the wikipedia incorporated into emacs. > > > Is there support for the color highlighting of the code by hovering as > > on this page ? > > >http://community.schemewiki.org/?lexical-scope > > > Which book/paper has the briefest minimal example of gui design along > > XML nested/hiearchical elements with event-listeners for lisp/scheme ? > > > Thanks > > I have used several available LISP systems such as the Gigamonkeys CLISP > Lispbox, and the Clozure Common LISP. > > The system which I currently am using is the Franz Allegro Common LISP. > It is a commercial product; and so far I have had no problems with the > Allegro. (NB: I am using the Express version. I feel that the full > scale commercial license is not exceedingly expensive.) > > (Right now I'm studying and working with the exercises in Peter Norvig's > book Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming. I have done 16 > of the 25 chapters.) > > This is not an advertisement. If someone wishes to criticize that > product, or if someone would like to suggest some other equally usable > implementation, of course please feel free to do so. > > regards, Antti J. Ylikoski > Helsinki, Finland, the E.U. What was your main reason for picking the Allegro (commercial) as opposed to one of the open source ones ? Is there anything in this old norvig book that makes it worth pursuing as a text ? http://norvig.com/paip.html |