Comment by narag
18 years ago
And even if writing a more complete compiler wasn't difficult enough, there's more much to it. There are complex details like exception handling (stack unwinding, signals...), graphical debuggers, interface with GUI libraries, threads, etc.
The fact that only commercial (and expensive) Lisp implementations have all these features is a hint that they're not trivial.
I'm not sure that's true. Right now I am working on GNU CLISP with bindings to Oracle and a GUI (via Ltk). Sure it's not trivial, but it's not impossible either.
That could fill the requirements for "enterprise" software, the kind of work that people happily convert to web apps. Making desktop software can be much much more demanding.
And in fact what we all need is a good, commercial grade open-source Lisp compiler + tools.
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Lisp's problems are not technical, they're social. We have a commercial-grade open-source lisp compiler. It's SBCL. And we have really excellent models for tools. If someone would extract SLIME from emacs and into an editor with less history behind it and more popular appeal, you'd have most of the tools you need.
Lisp is suffering because its community is fragmented and it has no leaders. Name a popular language that doesn't have an iconic corporation or person behind it, rallying and focusing the community? That condition is actually quite rare.
I think the reason why that is not likely to catch on is that most Lisp hackers enjoy using an editor that can itself be hacked in Lisp. Also, emacs is one of the most stable pieces of software in history. It will probably live forever and continue to evolve.
Also, I think that Lisp isn't really suffering. As far as I can tell there has been increasing interest in Lisp. Even without that trend continuing, Lisp is such a masterpiece (and it continues to develop with new innovations), that it is almost definitely here to stay, regardless of whether it becomes a trendy language to use again. The advantages in performance (say SBCL's for example) and expressiveness over other dynamic languages like Ruby and Python afford Lisp developers an actual advantage, as opposed to a merely perceived one.
>It's SBCL. And we have really excellent models for tools. If someone would extract SLIME from emacs and into an editor with less history behind it and more popular appeal, you'd have most of the tools you need.
SBCL port to Windows is a work in progress. And what you're saying about tools is more or less that they doesn't exist... yet. And comparing what you need to know and set up to start working with open source Lisp and other environments is... not fair.
6 replies →
SBCL: is it as good as Allegro? I haven't seen an IDE as beautiful and comfortable to work with as Allegro (although I'm barely a Lisp hacker, just a fan).
1 reply →