Common Lisp has often been called a “multi-paradigm” language, in that it allows you to program in many different styles, sometimes simultaneously: imperative, object-oriented, functional, statically typed, etc. It depends on what style you want to adopt, how your code will look.
Recently I’ve been porting a C++ accounting system to Common Lisp. And after only six weeks, the port is nearly complete — a feat I credit to the power of the Lisp language and the facilities it offers I’d been forced to replicate in C++.
But as the port nears completion, I find myself questioning some of the design decisions. Did C++ force me down a path where Lisp can offer a better alternative?
A couple of pathname issues were discovered in the release of Ready Lisp that was posted yesterday, leading to the inability to load asdf-install (or use it). These have been fixed in the new release uploaded today. If you now use asdf-install and choose a “system-wide” installation, the installed packages get saved in your Application [...]
There is a new version of Ready Lisp for Mac OS X available. This version is based on SBCL 1.0.12.17, and requires OS X Leopard 10.5. The most notable change from the previous version is that it is now fully universal, supporting PowerPC and 32- bit and 64-bit Intel machines. Also, threading has been turned [...]
Recently at work my manager asked me to create a server solution that was both, “Fun, and easy for me to get things running quickly in.” Well, to me that’s a roundabout way of saying Common Lisp, so I started looking at possible solutions based on that platform. The solution will run as a webserver [...]
Recent Comments
- Giuseppe Maggiore on A word on Haskell Monads and C++
- stevenm on Diving into Git
- johnw on Life and times of a TCP packet
- marllis on Life and times of a TCP packet
- Rose on Git from the bottom up
