News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by mcxx on Monday January 19, 2009 @08:55AM (#440437)
This guy is just rambling about CL and writing about his inability. I never had problems with SBCL on any machine, runs on my VPS, with threading, like a charm. Also, noone forced him to learn and use Emacs. There are Vim modes or CUPS for Eclipse. Destructive functions are the language's feature. If not sure, just use non-destructive. It's also not CL's fault he doesn't understand macros and can't use CL-WHO.

I like Clojure, but I like CL better. One guy's incompetence learning CL doesn't mean Clojure wins.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by fab13n on Monday January 19, 2009 @10:18AM (#440497)
This attitude ("It's good enough for me, I don't care anymore about the learning curve's steepness, and I'm indifferent/enthused that my language is only accessible to a tiny minority") captures the CL spirit quite well. It also explains why you have to do so much wheel reinvention when you code in CL: those lower lifeform coders, who you openly despise, produce working, ready-to-use libs for most common tasks on JVM, not for CL dialects. Up to you to reimplement your superior libs in your superior language for your superior self.

CL is the perfect language for those who consider that development is not a social activity, and luckily for you, there are a couple of niches where this remains a sustainable delusion. For now. Meanwhile, Clojure carries on the Lisp heritage in the branch of software development that's not going to get extinct soon.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by mcxx on Monday January 19, 2009 @10:37AM (#440523)
I don't have that attitude and I'm sorry if you encountered it (it's true the Lisp community could be friendlier, warmer to newcomers). However, what can a I (or any other Lisp programmer for that matter) do about the steep learning cure you mention? You have to try for yourself to learn the language, noone's going to do it for you.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by Retric on Monday January 19, 2009 @11:19AM (#440578)
what can a I

Create a simple working installer for the major OS's that includes a useful IDE, Database connectivity to least one major database and a fully functional web server. Once this is working get some people to write a standard library for date / time functions, file IO, formatting output etc.

Never underestimate how difficult it is for a new user to setup a working environment.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by jimbokun on Monday January 19, 2009 @12:52PM (#440693)
For OS X, Ready Lisp is the closest I have seen to what you describe.

http://www.newartisans.com/blog/ready-lisp.html

It's Aquamacs combined with SBCL, some documentation, and some should-be-standard CL libraries. Double click and it immediately takes you into a REPL. Aquamacs recognizes most of the usual Mac key bindings, making the Emacs curve not quite so steep.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by mcxx on Monday January 19, 2009 @11:59AM (#440624)
The closest thing at the moment would probably be Lispbox (http://gigamonkeys.com/book/lispbox/) altough it's a bit outdated, so you'd be better with directly downloading SBCL (http://www.sbcl.org/platform-table.html). Use cl-build (http://common-lisp.net/project/clbuild/) for to ease library download. and install. I guess it's too complicated for a newcomer, but there's no easier way atm, sorry.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by Retric on Monday January 19, 2009 @12:06PM (#440634)
That's my point, you could fix this.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by mcxx on Monday January 19, 2009 @12:11PM (#440644)
I get that. I'll definitely consider it. It's on my list of open-source side projects.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by ramchip on Monday January 19, 2009 @05:01PM (#440963)
Lispbox is a good idea. Target Windows if you can. Setting up Clojure with Emacs on Windows involved a lot of steps and arcane stuff, but now there's a Clojure Box which makes things a lot more pleasant.

I've tried SBCL with the Eclipse plugin and it's been a huge PITA. IIRC, I couldn't get libraries to install when I finally gave up. It may have improved since, but I'm not sure. Of course the fact that many cool-sounding CL libraries had defunct websites and inaccessible CVS repos didn't exactly encourage me...

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by narag on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @11:16AM (#441865)
"Create a simple working installer for the major OS's that includes a useful IDE, Database connectivity to least one major database and a fully functional web server..."

I'm just learning and my conclusion (by elimination :-)) is that for Windows the best is to use Emacs + SLIME + SBCL. There is an installation guide here: http://robert.zubek.net/blog/2008/04/09/sbcl-emacs-windows-v...

In the comments there are instructions to get ASDF working, that I haven't tried yet.

I've tried to avoid Emacs, but it seems impossible. Lisp in a Box has a lot of problems, ABLE has still too many bugs and Corman lacks GUI programming without which I can't justify the price. CUSP also has too many bugs. So I'm surrendering and looking at Emacs.

For the web server part, just use good old CGIs.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by vikram on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @06:40AM (#441626)
I think CL is suitable for projects which are fluid and have a very few people working on them. Speaking from personal experience 1 person can get an awful lot done in CL, very quickly. Compared to any other scripting language. I've worked with CL, Python and Ruby. There are certain things that I think are impossible to write in Python.

I started by writing a domain-specific crawler which extracted certain information from a bunch of sites. But the sites I was crawling changed their design mid way. So I then ended up writing a program in CL, to which I describe the data that the site has. E.g. Name-of-city is "Edinburgh", Address is '15 Market Place, ED12', First-Movie-name is 'Bend it like Beckham', First-showing-date is '15 Jan', First-showing-time is '14:20'. The program then produces a function which when give a page from this website extracts this information in the form of an alist so that it can be pushed into the database.

Funnily enough the my site which shows this data runs on django.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by jimbokun on Monday January 19, 2009 @09:50AM (#440475)
"I never had problems with SBCL on any machine"

I did, and so did this author.

So who's anecdote wins?

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by habibur on Monday January 19, 2009 @10:53AM (#440544)
Reddit was initially built on CMUCL on FreeBSD. Here is what Steve Huffman said on why they switched to python one weekend.

"The biggest trouble that plagued us was that we could never quite get Lisp reddit stable enough to sleep at night. There were weird threading issues that would bring the site to its knees a couple times a day and required constant monitoring."

You can read more of it in this blog entry.

http://www.findinglisp.com/blog/2005/12/reddit-and-lisp-psyc...

Edit: Corrected :-)

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by jesnell on Monday January 19, 2009 @12:27PM (#440662)
Reddit wasn't built on SBCL, which you would know if you had read the blog entry you linked to.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by critic on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @12:03AM (#441381)
I used CMUCL a bit, and SBCL almost never. Does SBCL really deliver on what it set out to do? Is it better, faster, more portable? As far as I know, the Windows port never matured. Which of the two do people recommend using?
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by jesnell on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:58AM (#441769)
SBCL set out to make a version of CMUCL that was easier to build and maintain. I'm pretty sure that was delivered.

But of course that's not of much interest to the average user. I think SBCL is in general faster, is developed more actively, has more features that are relevant in the modern world (eg. lose a Motif interface, gain native threads), and currently runs on more platforms than CMUCL does.

My impression is that most people using CMUCL are ones who started using it 10 years ago and are comfortable with it, new users would tend to go with SBCL. But I'm biased, so it's quite possible that there are real and substantial reasons to prefer CMUCL.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by narag on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @11:03AM (#441849)
_...the Windows port never matured_

I was subscribed to SBCL list some months ago. I could see that Windows port was quickly progressing. "Never matured" suggest a project that was tried and later abandoned. It seems more of an ongoing effort. Versions are still being created regularly. I would try in a few months.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by vikram on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @06:29AM (#441621)
They would have had fewer issues with sbcl on linux.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by Zak on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:49AM (#441574)
As did I. In my case, the problem was running it on a VPS that had no user-visible swap, no way to add swap space and possibly some other memory-related oddities that I don't remember. The workaround ended up being to limit SBCL's memory usage with --dynamic-space-size.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by mcxx on Monday January 19, 2009 @10:34AM (#440518)
Noone's. The point is it's not a valid argument. The sameway the author had problems deploying SBCL on his machine, I could have problems deploying JVM on mine.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by icey on Monday January 19, 2009 @11:02AM (#440558)
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. You rarely hear about people having issues getting the JVM set up on a random machine. On the other hand, deployment of SBCL is a complaint you hear somewhat regularly from people using shared hosting.

It's not necessarily a fault of SBCL, as much as it is a function of Java's popularity. But to say they equally share deployment problems seems a bit misguided to me.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by mcxx on Monday January 19, 2009 @11:44AM (#440608)
Yeah, you are probably right. Because of Java's popularity and high demand, hosting providers have to be Java-ready and nowadays, it's not a problem.

However, it seems I've been living in a cave. Besides the Reddit case, I haven't heard (or at least can't remember) about problems running a CL environment. Can people who had this problem please reply - what disto, what implementation, what was the issue?

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by jimbokun on Monday January 19, 2009 @12:18PM (#440653)
My experience trying to move some code from SBCL/OS X to a particular version of Linux is partially documented here.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/0450136edf...

The use case was a final class project, where the instructor needed to be able to run the final version of the program just by executing a script in an unpacked tar file. Couldn't get SBCL to run with the limited time I spent on it. Got CMUCL to run, but not in a way that could be deployed in a self installing manner. Punted and used Java (was easier to work with team members that way, too).

Clojure would have been perfect.

Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by narag on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @11:06AM (#441851)
I've had a lot of issues with JVM in a cheap hosting with Virtuozzo (a VPS). I assume people that are using Java choose a provider that gives it preinstalled.
Re:Clojure: 1, Common Lisp: 0 by DTrejo on Monday January 19, 2009 @10:57PM (#441327)
For anyone interested in the Eclipse plugin, it is CUSP: http://www.bitfauna.com/projects/cusp/