← Back to context

Comment by e40

5 days ago

Speaking of which, anyone had success using these tools for coding Common Lisp?

Agents no, LLMs yes. Not for generating code per se, but for answering questions. Common Lisp doesn't seem to have a strong influx of n00bs like me, and even though there's pretty excellent documentation, I find it sometimes hard to know what I'm looking for. LLMs definitely helped me a few times by answering my n00b questions I would have otherwise had to ask online.

Joe Marshall had a couple of posts about... No: https://funcall.blogspot.com/2025/05/vibe-coding-common-lisp...

  • Vibe coding Common Lisp could probably work well with additional tool support. Even a good documentation lookup and search tool, exposed in an AGENTS.md file, could significantly improve the problem Joe ran into of having the code generate bogus symbols. If you provide a small MCP server or other tool to introspect a running image containing your application, it could be even better.

    LLMs can handle the syntax of basically any language, but the library knowledge is significantly improved by having a larger corpus of code than Common Lisp tends to have publicly available.

Not CL specifically but works well with Clojure and fits better than non-lisp languages (imo) once you give the LLM direct access to the repl