hackslash dot org

Emacs Lisp Elements

Posted: 2025-04-12 15:09:14

This post provides a brief introduction to fundamental Emacs Lisp concepts. It covers basic data types like numbers, strings, and booleans, explaining how to manipulate them with built-in functions. The post also introduces lists, a crucial data structure in Lisp, showcasing their use in function definitions and data representation. It delves into defining functions with defun, demonstrating argument handling and return values. Finally, the post touches upon special forms like if and let for control flow and variable scoping, ultimately aiming to equip readers with the foundational knowledge needed to understand and write simple Emacs Lisp code.

The article "Emacs Lisp Elements" by Protesilaos Stavrou provides a comprehensive, yet approachable, introduction to the fundamental concepts of Emacs Lisp, the programming language that powers the extensibility of the Emacs text editor. It aims to equip readers with a foundational understanding, enabling them to comprehend and modify existing Emacs Lisp code, as well as write their own customizations and extensions.

The article begins by emphasizing the dynamic nature of Emacs Lisp and its tight integration with the Emacs environment. It highlights the interactive nature of the language, allowing users to evaluate and experiment with code directly within the editor. This empowers users to explore and learn Emacs Lisp organically, adapting the editor to their specific needs.

The core elements of Emacs Lisp are then systematically presented. The article delves into the syntax of the language, explaining the significance of parentheses and prefix notation. It meticulously describes the different data types available, such as numbers, strings, symbols, lists, and booleans, providing clear examples of their usage.

A significant portion of the article is dedicated to explaining functions, the building blocks of Emacs Lisp programs. The article details how to define functions using defun, how to call them, and how they operate on arguments. It also introduces the concept of lambda expressions for creating anonymous functions. The explanation of functions is complemented by a discussion of variables, outlining how to define and assign values to them using let and setq.

Control flow mechanisms, essential for directing the execution of programs, are also addressed. The article elucidates conditional expressions using if, cond, and when, and discusses looping constructs like while and dolist. These explanations provide the reader with the tools to create more complex and dynamic Emacs Lisp code.

Furthermore, the article explores the interaction of Emacs Lisp with the Emacs editor itself. It introduces the concept of buffers, windows, and keybindings, demonstrating how Emacs Lisp can manipulate these core components of the editing environment. It explains how to access and modify buffer content, manage windows, and define custom keybindings to execute specific Lisp functions, thereby demonstrating the practical application of Emacs Lisp for customizing the editor.

The article concludes by emphasizing the practical benefits of learning Emacs Lisp, highlighting its power to personalize and extend the Emacs experience. It encourages readers to explore further and experiment with the language, offering guidance on where to find additional resources and documentation. The overarching aim is to empower users to take control of their editing environment and tailor it precisely to their workflow and preferences.

Summary of Comments ( 43 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43665046

HN users largely praised the article for its clarity and accessibility in explaining Emacs Lisp fundamentals. Several commenters highlighted its usefulness for beginners, with one calling it the best introduction they'd seen. Some appreciated the focus on practical examples and the author's clear writing style. A few pointed out minor typos or suggested additional topics, like dynamic scoping. One user mentioned using the article as a basis for an Emacs Lisp presentation, further demonstrating its perceived value within the community. The overall sentiment was overwhelmingly positive, indicating the article successfully fills a need for a concise and understandable guide to Emacs Lisp.

The Hacker News post titled "Emacs Lisp Elements" has generated a modest number of comments, primarily focusing on the accessibility and usefulness of the linked article as an introductory resource to Emacs Lisp.

Several commenters praise the article for its clear and concise explanations, particularly appreciating its focus on fundamental concepts and avoidance of overly complex examples. One user specifically highlights the value of the article for beginners, stating that it provides a solid foundation for understanding Emacs Lisp without overwhelming the reader. Another commenter echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the article's helpfulness in grasping the basic building blocks of the language.

The discussion also touches upon the broader context of learning Emacs and its customization capabilities. One commenter suggests that the article serves as a good starting point for users who want to delve deeper into Emacs Lisp and personalize their Emacs experience. Another points out the potential of Emacs Lisp for extending Emacs functionality and creating custom tools, further emphasizing the practical applications of the knowledge gained from the article.

One user questions the necessity of learning Emacs Lisp for basic Emacs usage, suggesting that many users can effectively utilize Emacs without in-depth knowledge of the language. This prompts a counter-argument from another commenter who highlights the benefits of understanding Emacs Lisp, even at a basic level, for tasks such as customizing keybindings and minor configurations. This exchange reflects a common debate within the Emacs community regarding the balance between ease of use and the power of customization offered by Emacs Lisp.

While several commenters appreciate the article's focus on simplicity, one user expresses a desire for more advanced topics and examples. This suggests that while the article caters well to beginners, it may not fully satisfy users seeking more in-depth exploration of Emacs Lisp capabilities.

Overall, the comments generally portray the linked article as a valuable resource for individuals new to Emacs Lisp, offering a clear and accessible introduction to the language's fundamental concepts. While some users desire more advanced content, the majority of the comments focus on the article's effectiveness in providing a solid foundation for beginners.

Blacksmithing and Lisp

permalink

Posted: 2025-04-03 08:34:11

The author draws a parallel between blacksmithing and Lisp programming, arguing that both involve a transformative process of shaping raw materials into refined artifacts. Blacksmithing transforms metal through iterative heating, hammering, and cooling, while Lisp uses functions and macros to mold code into elegant and efficient structures. Both crafts require a deep understanding of their respective materials and tools, allowing practitioners to leverage the inherent properties of the medium to create complex and powerful results. This iterative, transformative process, coupled with the flexibility and expressiveness of the tools, fosters a sense of creative flow and empowers practitioners to build exactly what they envision.

The author of the blog post, "Blacksmithing and Lisp," draws a compelling parallel between the iterative, exploratory processes inherent in both the craft of blacksmithing and the practice of Lisp programming. They elaborate on how both disciplines require a constant cycle of experimentation, refinement, and adaptation based on feedback from the material being worked with – be it hot iron or code.

In blacksmithing, the smith begins with a raw material, a simple piece of metal, and through repeated heating, hammering, and quenching, shapes it into the desired form. Each strike of the hammer, each dip in the quenching bucket, provides feedback to the smith, informing their next action. This feedback loop, driven by the physical properties of the metal and the smith's understanding of those properties, is crucial to the successful creation of the final product. There is no grand, predetermined plan, but rather a continuous dance between the smith and the material, guided by experience and intuition.

Similarly, Lisp programming, according to the author, embraces this iterative and exploratory approach. The interactive nature of the Lisp environment allows the programmer to experiment with code in real time, evaluating expressions, modifying functions, and observing the immediate results. This tight feedback loop mirrors the blacksmith's interaction with the hot iron, enabling the programmer to shape and refine the code organically, much like the blacksmith shapes the metal. The REPL (Read-Eval-Print Loop) becomes the programmer's forge, and the code becomes the malleable material, constantly being molded and refined through interaction and experimentation.

The author emphasizes the importance of this interactive, feedback-driven process in both blacksmithing and Lisp, contrasting it with more rigid, pre-planned approaches. They suggest that this dynamic interplay with the material, whether physical or digital, fosters a deeper understanding and allows for greater creativity and adaptability. The act of creation becomes less about following a pre-defined blueprint and more about a continuous exploration and discovery, guided by the inherent properties of the medium and the practitioner's evolving understanding. This, the author posits, is a core similarity between the seemingly disparate worlds of blacksmithing and Lisp programming.

Summary of Comments ( 14 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43566651

Hacker News users discussed the parallels drawn between blacksmithing and Lisp in the linked blog post. Several commenters appreciated the analogy, finding it insightful and resonating with their own experiences in both crafts. Some highlighted the iterative, feedback-driven nature of both, where shaping the material (metal or code) involves constant evaluation and adjustment. Others focused on the power and expressiveness afforded by the tools and techniques of each, allowing for complex and nuanced creations. A few commenters expressed skepticism about the depth of the analogy, arguing that the physicality of blacksmithing introduces constraints and complexities not present in programming. The discussion also touched upon the importance of mastering fundamental skills in any craft, regardless of the tools used.

The Hacker News post "Blacksmithing and Lisp" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43566651) has several comments discussing the analogy between blacksmithing and Lisp programming.

One commenter argues that the core similarity lies in the iterative, feedback-driven process inherent in both crafts. They point out that blacksmiths, like Lisp programmers, start with a basic form, apply transformations, observe the results, and then refine their approach based on this feedback. This iterative cycle of shaping, evaluating, and adjusting is central to both disciplines. The commenter emphasizes the importance of developing a "feel" for the material, whether it's hot iron or code, through repeated interaction and experimentation. This "feel," they suggest, allows for more intuitive and effective manipulation.

Another commenter draws a parallel between the composability of Lisp code and the modularity in blacksmithing. They explain that just as a blacksmith can forge individual components and assemble them into a larger, more complex structure, Lisp programmers can create small, self-contained functions that can be combined to build powerful programs. This modularity promotes code reuse and simplifies the development process.

Furthermore, a commenter highlights the elegance and expressiveness of both blacksmithing and Lisp. They suggest that both crafts allow for a certain degree of artistry and creativity in shaping the final product. The simplicity and power of Lisp, they argue, allow programmers to express complex ideas with concise and elegant code, much like a blacksmith can create intricate designs with skillful manipulation of metal.

Another perspective offered in the comments focuses on the importance of understanding the underlying principles. Just as a blacksmith needs to understand the properties of metal and the effects of heat and pressure, a Lisp programmer needs to grasp the fundamentals of the language and its underlying mechanics. This deep understanding, according to the comment, allows for more effective and efficient creation.

Finally, a comment mentions the joy and satisfaction derived from mastering a craft, whether it's blacksmithing or Lisp programming. The process of learning and improving, overcoming challenges, and creating something tangible or functional, they suggest, is intrinsically rewarding in both domains. The challenge and subsequent mastery are highlighted as a core shared element.

In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post explore various facets of the analogy between blacksmithing and Lisp programming, focusing on the iterative process, modularity, elegance, the importance of understanding underlying principles, and the inherent satisfaction of mastering a craft.

Autology: A Lisp with access to its own interpreter

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-21 10:37:16

Autology is a Lisp dialect designed for self-modifying code and introspection. It exposes its own interpreter and data structures, allowing programs to analyze and manipulate their own source code, execution state, and even the interpreter itself during runtime. This capability enables dynamic code generation, on-the-fly modifications, and powerful metaprogramming techniques. It aims to provide a flexible environment for exploring novel programming paradigms and building self-aware, adaptive systems.

The GitHub repository titled "Autology: A Lisp with access to its own interpreter" introduces a novel Lisp dialect designed with a core principle of self-reflection, enabling the language to introspect and manipulate its own internal workings. This self-referential capability, a form of metacircularity, is achieved by granting Autology direct access to its own interpreter's state and functions. This means Autology programs can analyze and modify their own code, execution environment, and even the interpreter itself during runtime.

The implementation, written in Raku (formerly known as Perl 6), focuses on providing a minimalistic core language featuring typical Lisp constructs like s-expressions, symbols, lists, and basic arithmetic operations. However, the key distinguishing feature, as highlighted in the title, is the exposure of the interpreter's internal functions as first-class citizens within the language. This empowers Autology programs to perform actions such as: inspecting the current execution environment, manipulating the abstract syntax tree (AST) of the code being executed, dynamically redefining functions, and even altering the behavior of the interpreter itself.

The README provides examples demonstrating this self-modifying capability. One such example showcases how a user-defined function can access and modify the interpreter's environment, effectively allowing the program to rewrite itself on the fly. This dynamism opens possibilities for unique programming paradigms and allows for a high degree of flexibility and introspection not typically found in traditional Lisp dialects. While the project is still in its early stages of development, it offers a compelling exploration of the concept of a language having direct access to its own interpreter, potentially opening up new avenues for metaprogramming, code generation, and runtime adaptation. The Raku implementation further contributes to the project's novelty by leveraging Raku's expressiveness and modern features in constructing this unconventional Lisp interpreter.

Summary of Comments ( 28 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43434010

HN users generally expressed interest in Autology, a Lisp dialect with access to its own interpreter. Several commenters compared it favorably to Rebol in terms of metaprogramming capabilities. Some discussion focused on its potential use cases, including live coding and creating interactive development environments. Concerns were raised regarding its apparent early stage of development, the lack of documentation beyond the README, and the potential performance implications of its design. A few users questioned the practicality of such a language, while others were excited by the possibilities it presented for self-modifying code and advanced debugging tools. The reliance on Python for its implementation also sparked some debate.

The Hacker News post titled "Autology: A Lisp with access to its own interpreter" sparked a discussion with several interesting comments. Here's a summary:

Reflection and introspection capabilities: Several commenters focused on the power and potential of Autology's ability to access its own interpreter. They highlighted how this feature allows for powerful metaprogramming, enabling the language to modify and extend itself in dynamic ways. This capacity for introspection was seen as a key differentiator, enabling advanced techniques like creating new language constructs or modifying existing ones on the fly.
Comparison to other Lisps: The discussion naturally drew comparisons to other Lisp dialects, especially Common Lisp. Commenters debated the similarities and differences in their metaprogramming capabilities. Some pointed out that Common Lisp already offers significant introspection features, while others emphasized that Autology's approach, by giving direct access to the interpreter, potentially simplifies certain metaprogramming tasks.
Implementation details and performance: Some comments delved into the technical aspects of Autology's implementation. Questions were raised about how the interpreter access is managed and its potential impact on performance. Concerns about the overhead of such dynamic capabilities were also expressed.
Practical applications: While acknowledging the theoretical power of Autology's approach, some commenters questioned its practical applications. They wondered about real-world scenarios where direct access to the interpreter would be genuinely beneficial, and not just an academic curiosity. The need for concrete examples showcasing the practical advantages of this feature was highlighted.
The spirit of Lisp: Some commenters appreciated Autology for embracing the spirit of Lisp and pushing the boundaries of metaprogramming. They viewed it as a positive exploration of the potential of self-modifying code and a demonstration of the flexibility inherent in the Lisp family of languages.

One of the more compelling threads involved a discussion of the tradeoffs between powerful metaprogramming features and the potential for increased complexity and difficulty in reasoning about code. Some argued that while the ability to modify the interpreter offered incredible flexibility, it could also lead to code that is harder to understand, debug, and maintain. The discussion revolved around finding a balance between power and practicality.

Another interesting exchange focused on the differences between Autology's approach and existing metaprogramming techniques in other Lisps. This explored the nuances of manipulating the interpreter directly versus using more established mechanisms like macros. The discussion highlighted the subtle yet potentially significant distinctions between these methods and their implications for code organization and expressiveness.

Depending in Common Lisp – Using the CLOS dependent maintenance protocol (2022)

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-25 19:42:51

Steve Losh's blog post explores leveraging the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) for dependency management within Lisp applications. Instead of relying on external systems, Losh advocates using CLOS's built-in dependent maintenance protocol to automatically track and update derived values based on changes to their dependencies. He demonstrates this by creating a depending macro that simplifies defining these dependencies and automatically invalidates cached values when necessary. This approach offers a tightly integrated, efficient, and inherently Lisp-y solution to dependency tracking, reducing the need for external libraries or complex build processes. By handling dependencies within the language itself, this technique enhances code clarity and simplifies the overall development workflow.

Steve Losh's blog post, "Depending in Common Lisp – Using the CLOS dependent maintenance protocol (2022)," explores the powerful dependency maintenance system inherent in Common Lisp's Common Lisp Object System (CLOS). The post focuses on how to effectively leverage this often overlooked feature for managing complex relationships between data and computations within a Lisp program. Instead of manually tracking and updating dependent values whenever their dependencies change, CLOS provides a built-in mechanism to automate this process, leading to more efficient and less error-prone code.

Losh begins by highlighting the common programming problem of maintaining consistency between calculated values and their source data. He illustrates this with a simple example of a rectangle object whose area depends on its width and height. Traditionally, updating the area requires explicit recalculation every time the width or height changes, a tedious and potentially buggy process.

The post then introduces the CLOS solution: the dependent maintenance protocol. This protocol, implemented through the update-dependent generic function, allows objects to declare dependencies and automatically trigger recalculations when those dependencies change. The protocol works by establishing a relationship between a dependent object (e.g., the area) and its independent objects (e.g., width and height). Whenever an independent object is modified, CLOS automatically invokes the update-dependent method for the dependent object, providing an opportunity to recalculate its value based on the updated dependencies.

Losh delves into the mechanics of update-dependent, explaining its arguments and demonstrating how to define custom methods for specific classes. He provides a detailed example of implementing the rectangle area calculation using this protocol. The code demonstrates how to register the area as dependent on the width and height, and how to define the update-dependent method to recalculate the area whenever the width or height are modified.

Furthermore, the post discusses how to handle more complex scenarios, such as dependencies involving multiple objects and circular dependencies. Losh explains that the system intelligently handles dependency chains and avoids infinite recalculation loops. He also touches on the concept of "dependency keys," which allow finer-grained control over when update-dependent is called.

The post concludes by emphasizing the benefits of using CLOS's dependency maintenance system. It highlights the reduction in boilerplate code, improved code clarity, and reduced risk of inconsistencies due to forgotten updates. Losh encourages Lisp programmers to explore and utilize this powerful tool to manage dependencies within their applications, pointing out that it is a valuable but often underappreciated aspect of CLOS. He suggests it can be particularly useful in situations like graphical user interfaces, reactive programming, and simulations, where maintaining data consistency is crucial.

Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43176358

Hacker News users discussed the complexity of Common Lisp's dependency system, particularly its use of the CLOS dependent maintenance protocol. Some found the system overly complex for simple tasks, arguing simpler dependency tracking mechanisms would suffice. Others highlighted the power and flexibility of CLOS for managing complex dependencies, especially in larger projects. The discussion also touched on the trade-offs between declarative and imperative approaches to dependency management, with some suggesting a hybrid approach could be beneficial. Several commenters appreciated the blog post for illuminating a lesser-known aspect of Common Lisp. A few users expressed interest in exploring other dependency management solutions within the Lisp ecosystem.

The Hacker News post titled "Depending in Common Lisp – Using the CLOS dependent maintenance protocol (2022)" has generated a modest number of comments, offering some interesting perspectives on dependency management in Common Lisp and comparing it to other systems.

One commenter highlights the elegance and power of the CLOS dependent maintenance protocol, arguing that it represents a sophisticated approach to dependency tracking and update propagation, surpassing the capabilities of many other dependency systems. They emphasize the seamless integration with the object system and the ability to define custom dependency relationships.

Another comment draws a parallel between the described Common Lisp system and the reactive programming paradigm, observing that the automatic update mechanism resembles the behavior of reactive frameworks. They suggest that this inherent reactivity simplifies complex application logic by automatically handling state changes and updates.

A separate comment chain discusses the trade-offs between the dynamic nature of Common Lisp and the static approaches found in languages like Java. Some argue that the dynamic nature allows for greater flexibility and rapid prototyping, while others express concerns about the potential for runtime errors and debugging challenges. The discussion touches on the benefits of both approaches, acknowledging the value of static analysis for catching errors early but also recognizing the power of dynamic systems for adapting to changing requirements.

One commenter questions the necessity of a separate dependency system within Common Lisp, proposing that the core language features already provide sufficient mechanisms for managing dependencies. They suggest that leveraging macros and functions can achieve similar results without introducing additional complexity. This sparks a brief discussion about the merits of specialized dependency management tools versus relying on fundamental language constructs.

Finally, a few comments provide additional context by mentioning related libraries and tools in the Common Lisp ecosystem, further enriching the understanding of dependency management in this context. They offer pointers to alternative approaches and resources for those interested in exploring the topic further.

Why Clojure?

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-22 09:44:29

Clojure offers a compelling blend of practicality and powerful abstractions. Its Lisp syntax, while initially daunting, promotes code clarity and conciseness once mastered. Immutability by default simplifies reasoning about code and facilitates concurrency, while the dynamic nature allows for rapid prototyping and interactive development. Leveraging the vast Java ecosystem provides stability and performance, and the focus on functional programming principles encourages robust and maintainable applications. Ultimately, Clojure empowers developers to build complex systems with elegance and efficiency.

The blog post "Why Clojure?" by Gaiwan presents a comprehensive argument for choosing Clojure as a primary programming language, emphasizing its unique strengths and how they contribute to developer productivity and robust software creation. The author begins by acknowledging the inherent difficulty in selecting a programming language, highlighting the multitude of factors involved, from personal preferences and project requirements to community support and long-term viability. They then proceed to meticulously dissect Clojure’s features and philosophy, explaining why these aspects make it a compelling choice.

A central theme of the post is Clojure's foundation in Lisp, a family of programming languages known for their powerful macro systems and code-as-data philosophy. The author explicates how this heritage translates into unparalleled flexibility and expressiveness in Clojure, allowing developers to craft elegant and concise solutions to complex problems. They particularly emphasize the homoiconicity of Clojure, where code is represented as data structures that can be manipulated programmatically, enabling powerful metaprogramming capabilities. This, they argue, facilitates the creation of domain-specific languages (DSLs) tailored to specific project needs, ultimately boosting productivity and reducing boilerplate.

Furthermore, the blog post champions Clojure's emphasis on immutability, a core principle that significantly simplifies reasoning about program behavior and facilitates concurrent programming. By default, data structures in Clojure are immutable, meaning they cannot be changed after creation. This eliminates a large class of potential bugs related to shared mutable state, making concurrent programming much more manageable and less prone to errors. The author elaborates on how this feature contributes to the creation of more reliable and maintainable software systems, especially in complex, multi-threaded environments.

The post also highlights the seamless interoperability between Clojure and Java, allowing developers to leverage the vast ecosystem of Java libraries and frameworks. This practical advantage provides access to a wealth of pre-built functionalities and tools, significantly reducing development time and effort. Furthermore, it allows Clojure applications to be readily deployed within existing Java infrastructures.

The author also touches upon the vibrant and supportive Clojure community, portraying it as a valuable resource for learning and collaboration. This active community fosters a culture of knowledge sharing and mutual support, providing newcomers with ample opportunities to learn from experienced developers and contribute to the language's evolution.

Finally, the post acknowledges that Clojure might not be the perfect language for every situation. It suggests that Clojure is particularly well-suited for projects demanding high concurrency, complex data manipulation, and long-term maintainability. The author concludes by encouraging developers to explore Clojure and experience its unique blend of power and elegance firsthand, hinting at the potential for a paradigm shift in their approach to software development.

Summary of Comments ( 28 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137586

HN commenters generally agree with the author's points on Clojure's strengths, particularly its simple, consistent syntax, powerful data structures, and the benefits of immutability and functional programming for concurrency. Some discuss practical advantages in their own work, citing increased productivity and fewer bugs. A few caution that Clojure's unique features have a learning curve and can make debugging more challenging. Others mention Lisp's historical influence and the powerful REPL as key benefits, while some debate the practicality of Clojure's immutability and the ecosystem's reliance on Java. Several commenters highlight Clojure's suitability for specific domains like data processing and web development. There's also discussion around tooling, with some praise for Clojure's tooling and others mentioning room for improvement.

The Hacker News post "Why Clojure?" with the ID 43137586 has generated a moderate number of comments, discussing various aspects of the language and its ecosystem.

Several commenters focus on the productivity benefits of Clojure. One user highlights the REPL as a key feature enabling faster development cycles and better experimentation. They mention how Clojure's interactive development process allows for quick feedback and iterative refinement, unlike compile-test-debug cycles in other languages. Another commenter emphasizes the power of immutability and functional programming paradigms, explaining how these concepts contribute to simpler code with fewer bugs. This commenter even asserts that they have seen large improvements in code quality and a reduction in code volume when switching to Clojure.

Another thread discusses the learning curve associated with Clojure. Some users acknowledge that while the initial learning phase might be steep due to its Lisp syntax and functional approach, the long-term benefits outweigh the initial investment. One commenter specifically mentions that while parentheses can appear intimidating at first, they become second nature with practice and actually contribute to code clarity. They argue that the regular structure of Lisp code makes it easier to parse and understand. Another commenter counters this, expressing frustration with the perceived complexity of Clojure and suggesting other functional languages as potentially easier alternatives.

The practicality and real-world applications of Clojure are also debated. Some commenters share their positive experiences using Clojure in production environments, praising its robustness and performance. They mention specific use cases, including web development and data processing, highlighting the language's suitability for complex tasks. However, other comments express skepticism about Clojure's widespread adoption and job market prospects. Concerns about the smaller community size compared to mainstream languages like Java or Python are also raised. One comment specifically mentions that while finding Clojure jobs might be challenging, the demand for skilled Clojure developers is relatively high, implying a potential advantage for those who invest in learning the language.

Finally, the discussion touches on the tooling and ecosystem surrounding Clojure. Some commenters praise the quality and maturity of Clojure's tooling, specifically mentioning libraries and frameworks that enhance development workflows. However, a counterpoint is raised regarding the relative immaturity compared to the tooling available for more established languages. One commenter also mentions the advantages of Clojure's JVM integration, allowing access to a vast ecosystem of Java libraries.

These years in Common Lisp: 2023-2024 in review

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-18 13:48:25

Common Lisp saw continued, albeit slow and steady, progress in 2023-2024. Key developments include improved tooling, notably with the rise of the CLPM build system and continued refinement of Roswell. Libraries like FFI, CFFI, and Bordeaux Threads saw improvements, along with advancements in web development frameworks like CLOG and Woo. The community remains active, albeit small, with ongoing efforts in areas like documentation and learning resources. While no groundbreaking shifts occurred, the ecosystem continues to mature, providing a stable and powerful platform for its dedicated user base.

This blog post, titled "These years in Common Lisp: 2023-2024 in review," offers a comprehensive retrospective on the advancements and noteworthy occurrences within the Common Lisp ecosystem over the past two years. The author, who actively participates in the community, structures the review around several key areas, providing detailed insights into each.

Firstly, the post acknowledges the continued, steady growth and maturation of the Common Lisp ecosystem, highlighting the stability of existing libraries and the emergence of new projects. This reinforces the perception of Common Lisp as a robust and evolving language, well-suited for long-term projects.

A significant portion of the review focuses on web development within Common Lisp. The author specifically praises the progress made with the CLOG web framework, lauding its unique approach to client-side rendering and the seamless integration it offers with the language's powerful features. Furthermore, they discuss other prominent web development tools and libraries like Hunchentoot and Caveman, demonstrating the breadth of options available to Common Lisp developers.

The evolution of tooling for Common Lisp also receives considerable attention. The author explores advancements in project management tools, build systems, and integrated development environments (IDEs), including Roswell and SLIMA. These improvements contribute significantly to the overall developer experience, streamlining workflows and enhancing productivity.

The post further delves into the expanding landscape of Common Lisp libraries. It highlights the rise of new libraries catering to diverse needs, from data processing and manipulation to network programming and graphical user interfaces. This burgeoning ecosystem signifies the community's active engagement and the language's adaptability to various domains.

A notable observation made by the author is the increasing adoption of Common Lisp in niche areas such as game development, scientific computing, and embedded systems. This expansion beyond traditional application areas demonstrates the versatility and power of Common Lisp, suggesting a broadening appeal among developers with specialized requirements.

The review also touches upon community initiatives, like conferences and online forums, emphasizing their crucial role in fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing. These platforms provide valuable avenues for developers to connect, learn from each other, and contribute to the growth of the Common Lisp ecosystem. The author's involvement in these activities lends credibility to their observations and highlights the vibrant nature of the community.

Finally, the post concludes with a positive outlook on the future of Common Lisp. The consistent progress in tooling, libraries, and community engagement paints an optimistic picture, suggesting continued growth and relevance for the language in the years to come. The author's enthusiasm for Common Lisp is palpable throughout the review, reinforcing the message of a thriving and dynamic language ecosystem.

Summary of Comments ( 11 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43089415

Several commenters on Hacker News appreciated the overview of Common Lisp's recent developments and the author's personal experience. Some highlighted the value of CL's stability and the ongoing work improving its ecosystem, particularly around areas like web development. Others discussed the language's strengths, such as its powerful macro system and interactive development environment, while acknowledging its steeper learning curve compared to more mainstream options. The continued interest and slow but steady progress of Common Lisp were seen as positive signs. One commenter expressed excitement about upcoming web framework improvements, while others shared their own positive experiences with using CL for specific projects.

OpenLDK: A Java JIT compiler and runtime in Common Lisp

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-05 12:17:47

OpenLDK is a project that implements a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler written entirely in Common Lisp. It aims to be a high-performance JVM alternative, leveraging Lisp's metaprogramming capabilities for dynamic code generation and optimization. The project features a modular design, encompassing a bytecode interpreter, a tiered JIT compiler using a method-based compilation strategy, and a garbage collector. OpenLDK is considered experimental and under active development, focusing on performance enhancements and broader Java compatibility.

OpenLDK (Open Lisp Development Kit) is an ambitious project aiming to create a high-performance Java implementation entirely within Common Lisp. It strives to not simply interpret Java bytecode, but to leverage the power of Lisp's metaprogramming capabilities to compile Java code into efficient native machine code using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler. This approach offers the potential for significant performance gains compared to traditional Java interpreters or even some existing JIT compilers.

The project's core is a custom-built JIT compiler written in Common Lisp. This compiler takes Java bytecode as input and translates it into native machine instructions for the target architecture. The choice of Common Lisp as the implementation language is driven by its powerful macro system and flexible runtime environment, which facilitate complex code transformations and optimizations required for an effective JIT compiler. This allows for a potentially more adaptable and extensible JIT compilation process compared to compilers written in lower-level languages.

OpenLDK also includes a runtime environment written in Common Lisp. This environment provides the necessary infrastructure for executing compiled Java code, including features like garbage collection, thread management, and access to the underlying operating system. By implementing the runtime in Lisp, OpenLDK gains greater control over these crucial aspects of Java execution and can potentially tailor them to specific needs or hardware platforms. This could theoretically enable experimentation with novel garbage collection strategies or concurrency models.

The project aims to be a fully compliant Java implementation, supporting a wide range of Java features and libraries. While still in its early stages of development, the roadmap indicates intentions to eventually support the full Java standard library and potentially even some popular third-party libraries. This implies significant ongoing development efforts are required to achieve full Java compatibility.

OpenLDK leverages several existing Lisp libraries for its functionality, including the cl-jclasslib library for parsing Java class files and accessing bytecode information. This reliance on existing components demonstrates a pragmatic approach to development, building upon the mature Lisp ecosystem rather than reinventing the wheel.

While the project presents a novel and intriguing approach to Java implementation, it is important to note its experimental nature. The project's documentation acknowledges that it is still under active development and may not be suitable for production use. There's likely a considerable amount of work remaining to achieve a stable and performant Java environment. However, the project's potential to explore new frontiers in JIT compilation and language interoperability makes it a compelling endeavor.

Summary of Comments ( 16 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42947447

Commenters on Hacker News express interest in OpenLDK, primarily focusing on its unusual implementation of a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in Common Lisp. Several question the practical applications and performance implications of this approach, wondering about its speed and suitability for real-world projects. Some highlight the potential benefits of Lisp's dynamic nature for tasks like debugging and introspection. Others draw parallels to similar projects like Clojure and GraalVM, discussing their respective advantages and disadvantages. A few express skepticism about the long-term viability of the project, while others praise the technical achievement and express curiosity about its potential. The novelty of using Lisp for JVM implementation clearly sparks the most discussion.

The Hacker News discussion on OpenLDK, a Java JIT compiler and runtime written in Common Lisp, features a moderate number of comments that explore several interesting facets of the project.

A recurring theme is the perceived unusual choice of Lisp for implementing a Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Several commenters express surprise or curiosity about this decision, questioning the performance implications and rationale behind it. Some speculate about potential benefits, like the flexibility and metaprogramming capabilities of Lisp, which could facilitate experimentation and potentially lead to innovative JVM features. However, skepticism regarding performance, particularly garbage collection and runtime speed, is also voiced.

There's significant discussion surrounding the practical applications and target audience of OpenLDK. Commenters ponder whether it's intended for specialized use cases like embedded systems or niche applications where the dynamic nature of Lisp might be advantageous. Others question its competitiveness against established JVMs like Hotspot in terms of performance for general-purpose Java development.

Some commenters delve into the technical details of the project, inquiring about specific implementation choices, like garbage collection strategies and the interaction between Lisp and the generated Java bytecode. There's interest in understanding how the Lisp environment influences the JIT compilation process and the overall runtime behavior.

The maintainability and future development of the project are also brought up. Given the relatively niche nature of Lisp, some commenters express concern about the long-term viability and potential for community contributions. There are questions about the project's roadmap and whether it aims to become a fully featured, production-ready JVM.

Finally, the historical context of Lisp in the JVM ecosystem is mentioned. Commenters recall previous attempts to bridge these two worlds, referencing projects like Clojure and ABCL, and discussing the lessons learned from those endeavors. This historical perspective adds another layer to the conversation, highlighting the challenges and opportunities of combining Lisp and Java technologies.

Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-01 17:06:13

Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp (MCL) was a popular Lisp development environment for the classic Mac OS. Developed by Franz Inc., it offered a full-featured implementation of Common Lisp, including an integrated development environment (IDE) with a compiler, debugger, and inspector. MCL leveraged the Macintosh interface, offering a graphical user interface and utilizing features like QuickDraw for graphics. It was known for its performance and robust capabilities, making it a favored choice for AI research and development on the Mac platform during the late 80s and 90s. Though no longer actively developed, it represents a significant chapter in the history of Lisp on the Mac.

The Macintosh Repository entry details Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp (MCL), a powerful and versatile implementation of the Common Lisp programming language specifically designed for Apple Macintosh computers. Developed by Franz Inc., MCL offered a comprehensive development environment that tightly integrated with the classic Macintosh operating system.

The software package included a sophisticated integrated development environment (IDE) boasting features like a listener for interactive code evaluation, a source-level debugger for identifying and resolving code errors, and a compiler capable of generating highly optimized native Macintosh applications. Furthermore, MCL provided an extensive library of pre-built functions and tools covering a wide range of programming tasks, empowering developers to create complex and feature-rich applications with relative ease. This comprehensive library included support for areas such as graphics, user interface development, networking, and more, allowing developers to tap into the core functionalities of the Macintosh platform.

The entry highlights MCL's close integration with the Macintosh Toolbox, the set of APIs that provided access to the operating system's underlying functionalities. This integration allowed developers to seamlessly incorporate Macintosh-specific features, such as QuickDraw graphics and user interface elements, directly into their Lisp programs, enabling the creation of applications that felt truly native to the Macintosh environment. The mention of PowerPC support suggests that MCL was adapted to leverage the performance capabilities of Apple's then-new RISC architecture, signifying an ongoing commitment to keeping the development environment current with advancements in Macintosh hardware. This focus on performance, coupled with the rich feature set and tight system integration, made MCL a compelling option for developers seeking a high-quality Lisp development experience on the Macintosh platform. The entry essentially positions MCL as a professional-grade development tool for serious Lisp programmers working within the Apple ecosystem.

Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899879

Hacker News users discuss Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp, with several expressing nostalgia for the environment and its impressive capabilities for the time. One commenter recalls its speed and the powerful IDE, noting its use in AI research. Another highlights its foreign function interface, enabling integration with existing Mac Toolbox code. Some lament the closed-source nature and the eventual decline of MCL, while others suggest exploring modern open-source Lisp options like SBCL or CCL. The high cost of MCL is also mentioned. One user points out the existence of a free version with limitations. The thread overall expresses appreciation for MCL's historical significance in the Lisp and Mac communities.

I made a multiplayer shooter game in Lisp, here is my journey

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-22 20:03:42

Driven by a desire to learn networking and improve his Common Lisp skills, the author embarked on creating a multiplayer shooter game. He chose the relatively low-level Hunchentoot web server, using WebSockets for communication and opted for a client-server architecture over peer-to-peer for simplicity. Development involved tackling challenges like client-side prediction, interpolation, and hit detection while managing the complexities of game state synchronization. The project, though rudimentary graphically, provided valuable experience in game networking and solidified his appreciation for Lisp's flexibility and the power of its ecosystem. The final product is functional, allowing multiple players to connect, move, and shoot each other in a simple 2D arena.

Ertuğrul Çetin detailed their experience developing a multiplayer shooter game using Common Lisp, specifically the SBCL implementation, and documented the journey in a comprehensive blog post. They began by outlining their motivation, driven by a long-standing desire to create a game and a fascination with Lisp's unique capabilities. This fascination stemmed from prior exposure to the language and a belief in its potential for game development, despite its unconventional status in the gaming world.

The post then delves into the technical aspects of the project. Initially, Ertuğrul experimented with the Bearriver game library, but ultimately decided against it due to perceived limitations in networking functionality. This led them to explore and utilize a combination of libraries and tools, most notably cl-sdl2 for graphics and low-level input handling, and ENet for networking. The decision to use ENet was based on its lightweight nature and suitability for the real-time demands of a shooter game.

The development process is described as iterative, with the initial focus on establishing fundamental mechanics like player movement, projectile handling, and collision detection. The implementation details of these features are explained, highlighting the use of Common Lisp's powerful macro system and functional programming paradigms. For instance, game objects and their interactions were managed using structs and functions that operate on these structs, showcasing a data-oriented approach.

Networking posed a significant challenge, requiring careful synchronization of game state between the server and clients. Ertuğrul describes the chosen client-server architecture and the strategies employed to minimize latency and ensure consistency. The server authoritatively tracks game state and broadcasts updates to connected clients. Clients predict their own actions locally to enhance responsiveness, while relying on server corrections to maintain accuracy.

The graphics aspect of the game is kept deliberately simple, employing basic 2D shapes to represent players and projectiles. This minimalist approach allowed Ertuğrul to prioritize core gameplay mechanics and networking functionality over visual polish. The blog post includes screenshots showcasing the game's visual style.

The post concludes with a reflection on the lessons learned throughout the development process. Ertuğrul expresses satisfaction with completing the project and highlights the advantages of using Lisp, such as its interactive development environment and the expressive power of its macro system. The challenges encountered, particularly in networking, are also acknowledged. Finally, the source code of the game is made available on GitHub, encouraging others to explore and learn from the project.

Summary of Comments ( 5 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42796906

HN users largely praised the author's work on the Lisp shooter game, calling it "impressive" and "inspiring." Several commenters focused on the choice of Lisp, some expressing surprise at its suitability for game development while others affirmed its capabilities, particularly Common Lisp's performance. Discussion arose around web game development technologies, including the use of WebSockets and client-side rendering with PixiJS. Some users inquired about the networking model and server architecture. Others highlighted the clear and well-written nature of the accompanying blog post, appreciating the author's breakdown of the development process. A few commenters offered constructive criticism, suggesting improvements like mobile support. The general sentiment leaned towards encouragement and appreciation for the author's technical achievement and willingness to share their experience.

The Hacker News post titled "I made a multiplayer shooter game in Lisp, here is my journey" (linking to https://ertu.dev/posts/i-made-an-online-shooter-game-in-lisp/) generated a moderate amount of discussion with a mix of technical curiosity and some skepticism.

Several commenters expressed admiration for the author's accomplishment and interest in the technical details. One commenter specifically praised the clear writing and the author's approach to tackling a complex project, breaking it down into manageable steps. They also appreciated the author's honesty about the challenges faced. Another user expressed interest in Common Lisp and game development, seeing this project as further evidence of Lisp's suitability for such tasks. Questions were raised about the specific libraries used, particularly concerning networking and graphics.

Some commenters questioned the practicality of using Lisp for game development, citing potential performance issues and the lack of established libraries compared to more mainstream game development ecosystems. One comment suggested that while interesting from a technical perspective, choosing Lisp might not be the most efficient way to achieve the end goal. Another pointed out the potential difficulty in finding collaborators or maintaining a Lisp-based game project in the long run, given the smaller community size.

Performance concerns were addressed, with discussion about the potential overhead of garbage collection and the author's use of SBCL. A few comments highlighted the mature and optimized nature of SBCL, suggesting that performance might not be as much of a concern as some might assume.

There was also discussion about the game's simplistic graphics, with some suggesting improvements or exploring alternative rendering approaches. One user specifically suggested using a pre-rendered tileset for improved visual fidelity.

Finally, there was some discussion about web-based gaming technologies, including WASM and the challenges of achieving performant multiplayer interactions in a browser environment. Some commenters shared their own experiences with WASM for game development, offering potential solutions and insights.

Overall, the comments reflect a mix of genuine interest in the project, admiration for the author's technical skills, and pragmatic concerns about the chosen technology stack. The discussion is generally constructive and offers a valuable perspective on the trade-offs involved in choosing Lisp for game development.

Parinfer: Simpler Lisp Editing

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-20 08:21:16

Parinfer simplifies Lisp code editing by automatically managing parentheses, brackets, and indentation. It offers two modes: "Paren Mode," where indentation dictates structure and Parinfer adjusts parentheses accordingly, and "Indent Mode," where parentheses define the structure and Parinfer corrects indentation. This frees the user from manually tracking matching delimiters, allowing them to focus on the code's logic. Parinfer analyzes the code as you type, instantly propagating changes and offering immediate feedback about structural errors, leading to a more fluid and less error-prone coding experience. It's adaptable to different indentation styles and supports various Lisp dialects.

Parinfer, introduced by Shaun Lebron, proposes a novel approach to editing Lisp code, aiming to simplify the traditionally cumbersome process of managing parentheses. It operates on the principle of maintaining structural consistency, automatically adjusting parentheses as the user types code, eliminating the need for manual insertion, deletion, or matching.

The system works by allowing developers to focus on either the content of their code (referred to as "Paren Mode") or the structure represented by parentheses (referred to as "Indent Mode"). In Paren Mode, users type code as they normally would, adding and removing characters. Parinfer intercepts these changes and intelligently adjusts the surrounding parentheses to maintain proper syntactic balance. This eliminates the common errors associated with mismatched or missing parentheses, allowing for a more fluid and uninterrupted coding experience.

Conversely, in Indent Mode, the user manipulates the indentation of the code, which Parinfer interprets as instructions for modifying the parenthetical structure. Changes in indentation will automatically insert, delete, or reposition parentheses to reflect the intended nesting of expressions. This offers an alternative approach to structuring code, leveraging the visual cues of indentation for greater clarity and ease of manipulation, especially in deeply nested expressions.

Parinfer supports a wide range of Lisp dialects, including Clojure, Scheme, Common Lisp, and Racket, demonstrating its adaptability and broad applicability within the Lisp ecosystem. It is not tied to any specific editor, being implemented as a library that can be integrated into various editing environments. This portability makes it accessible to a wider audience of Lisp programmers, regardless of their preferred tools.

The system strives to be minimally invasive, ensuring that edits are predictable and understandable. It operates on a clear set of rules that govern the interaction between typed characters, indentation, and the resulting parenthetical structure. This predictability is crucial for building trust in the system and allowing users to confidently rely on Parinfer to handle the intricacies of parenthesis management. Furthermore, the simplicity of its design aims to reduce the cognitive load associated with editing Lisp code, freeing the developer to focus on the logic and algorithms of their programs rather than the syntactical overhead.

Summary of Comments ( 9 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42766205

HN users generally praised Parinfer for making Lisp editing easier, especially for beginners. Several commenters shared positive experiences using it with Clojure, noting improvements in code readability and reduced parenthesis-related errors. Some highlighted its ability to infer parentheses placement based on indentation, simplifying structural editing. A few users discussed its potential applicability to other languages, and at least one pointed out its integration with popular editors. However, some expressed skepticism about its long-term benefits or preference for traditional Lisp editing approaches. A minor point of discussion revolved around the tool's name and how it relates to its functionality.

The Hacker News post "Parinfer: Simpler Lisp Editing" generated a moderate discussion with several commenters sharing their experiences and perspectives on Parinfer and Lisp editing in general.

Several users praised Parinfer for its innovative approach to structural editing, finding it significantly easier and less error-prone than traditional parenthesis management in Lisp. One commenter stated that it transformed their Clojure editing experience, eliminating the constant struggle with parentheses and allowing them to focus on the code's logic. Another shared that Parinfer made them enjoy writing Lisp again after previous frustrations. The intuitive nature of Parinfer's paren-handling and its ability to infer correct structure was highlighted as a key advantage.

Some users compared Parinfer favorably to other structural editing tools and techniques, such as Paredit. While acknowledging Paredit's power, they found Parinfer's approach simpler to learn and use, leading to a more fluid coding experience. One comment specifically mentioned the reduced cognitive load when using Parinfer compared to Paredit. However, other users expressed a preference for Paredit, arguing that its explicit commands offered more control and predictability. This sparked a brief discussion on the merits of different approaches to structural editing.

A few commenters raised potential drawbacks of Parinfer. One concern was the learning curve associated with a new editing paradigm, although some argued that this was minimal compared to the benefits. Another commenter mentioned the possibility of unexpected behavior in certain edge cases, suggesting that understanding the underlying rules of Parinfer is important for effective use. A desire for better editor integration and more comprehensive documentation was also expressed.

The discussion also touched upon broader topics related to Lisp and code editing. One comment highlighted the historical challenges of Lisp editing and how tools like Parinfer address these issues. Another discussed the importance of proper tooling for enhancing developer productivity and enjoyment. A commenter also mentioned the relevance of Parinfer's approach to other languages with significant syntactic structure, suggesting potential applications beyond Lisp.

Overall, the comments reflect a generally positive reception of Parinfer, with many users appreciating its simplified approach to Lisp editing. While some concerns and alternative viewpoints were presented, the overall sentiment suggests that Parinfer offers a compelling solution to a longstanding challenge in Lisp programming.

Stories with Tag Lisp

Summary of Comments ( 43 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43665046

Summary of Comments ( 14 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43566651

Summary of Comments ( 28 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43434010

Summary of Comments ( 2 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43176358

Summary of Comments ( 28 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137586

Summary of Comments ( 11 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43089415

Summary of Comments ( 16 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42947447

Summary of Comments ( 24 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899879

Summary of Comments ( 5 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42796906

Summary of Comments ( 9 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42766205

Summary of Comments ( 43 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43665046

Summary of Comments ( 14 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43566651

Summary of Comments ( 28 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43434010

Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43176358

Summary of Comments ( 28 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137586

Summary of Comments ( 11 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43089415

Summary of Comments ( 16 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42947447

Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899879

Summary of Comments ( 5 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42796906

Summary of Comments ( 9 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42766205