Suppose I use SBCL to develop a Common Lisp project to be built with ASDF and loaded with Quicklisp.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

Suppose I use SBCL to develop a Common Lisp project to be built with ASDF and loaded with Quicklisp. To simplify things and leverage defaults should the source tree go under ~/quicklisp/local-projects/ or ~/common-lisp/?

#CommonLisp #quicklisp #lisp

[hajovonta@mastodon.online]

@amoroso I put my projects into the former and recommend it.

[andreasdavour@dice.camp]

@amoroso the former, if you are using quicklisp and it's a local project.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

@hajovonta Thanks.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

@AndreasDavour Right, a local project. Thanks.

[aartaka@merveilles.town]

@amoroso I’d put it into ~/common-lisp/ for ASDF compatibility, but I haven’t tried it with Quicklisp yet.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

@aartaka Thanks, others in this thread report it should work also under ~/quicklisp/local-projects/.

[aartaka@merveilles.town]

@amoroso it does work indeed, just checked. Then it’s a matter of preference. And my preference is ~/common-lisp/, because using Quicklisp-specific dirs feels like (but, in this case, isn’t) vendor-lock. But that’s a me-thing, feel free to ignore.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

@aartaka An interesting thought, thanks.

[khinsen@scholar.social]

@aartaka @amoroso +1 In analogy to the principle of least power and similar ideas, I'd go for least dependencies and avoid a dependency on Quicklisp if I can.

I do, however, wonder why Quicklisp has local projects at all.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

@khinsen Are local projects useful for testing projects locally for eventual Quicklisp distribution?

@aartaka