News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lisp for web apps? Tell me more.. (seriously) by dhouston on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:37PM (#10938)
if you're thinking of developing a web app in lisp but haven't looked at python or ruby, you might consider them -- remember, it's not just the raw language but also the surrounding infrastructure, and python (django, turbogears) and ruby (rails) have arguably much more developed frameworks, and also arguably have most of the interesting language features that would draw you to lisp in the first place.

the point is the language is only one piece of the equation -- you want to be spending your time developing your app, not rolling your own supporting elements (templating systems, init scripts, form validators, sql bindings/mappers, etc.) and of course i'm sure others will point out reddit's switch from lisp to python.

Re:Lisp for web apps? Tell me more.. (seriously) by vikram on Monday April 09, 2007 @04:08PM (#10958)
Most people say that you shouldn't use lisp because it doesn't have libraries. Well they are only half right. You shouldn't use lisp, because most lisp libraries have very little documentation. Lisp has a lot of libraries. You have to be willing to read code (i.e. examples/tests) to figure out how to use them.

http://www.cliki.net/Library

Assuming that the most precious commodity is development time. I'd say rails/django don't even come close to UCW in getting stuff done.

Re:Lisp for web apps? Tell me more.. (seriously) by rms on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @02:31AM (#11150)
Why is lisp so sparsely documented?
Re:Lisp for web apps? Tell me more.. (seriously) by vikram on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @11:58AM (#11914)
For me saying what a function does isn't good enough, when one is documenting an api. Examples are a must. The other problem is that the lisp packaging system is a bit weird. If a library doesn't have an ASDF definition its almost non-existent for me.
Re:Lisp for web apps? Tell me more.. (seriously) by jaggederest on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @06:24AM (#11195)
(because-function-names-are-so-long-and-detailed 'post)