Artyom Bologov @aartaka describes the languages and programming styles that are in Common Lisp.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

Artyom Bologov @aartaka describes the languages and programming styles that are in Common Lisp. To me Common Lisp is more a rich toolbox than a family of languages.

https://aartaka.me/cl-is-lots.html

#CommonLisp #lisp

[khinsen@scholar.social]

@amoroso From a pragmatic point of view, I share the "toolbox" perspective, but taking a historical perspective, @aartaka 's view of CL being a fusion of similar languages with distinct focuses is interesting.

Nothing special of course, human languages are much the same: the result of complex historical paths, which however we don't need to know or understand to use the language.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

@khinsen Agreed, the family of languages makes a lot of sense once you take the historical evolution into account.

@aartaka

[symbolics@mastodon.social]

@amoroso @aartaka Standardized #lisp #commonlisp has a bunch of different embedded languages (LOOP -> macro-based transpiler, FORMAT strings -> interpreter and transpiler, CLOS -> extension of Lisp, ...). As libraries there are zillions more of those. Then CL inherits features from Lisp 1, Maclisp variants and has evolved from CLtL1, CLtL2, ANSI CL. One thing that is missing: CL-USER . The CL-USER package contains an implementation specific largely extended version of Common Lisp.

[symbolics@mastodon.social]

@amoroso @aartaka #lisp #common-lisp the language versions are also available in Symbolics Genera as dialects ZetaLisp and a few versions of #common-lisp . In the screenshot one can see that the default package is actually different for each dialect -> different symbols are inherited. Thus one can write code in a version of CLtL1, Symbolics Common Lisp or in ANSI Common Lisp. In one Lisp system.

[amoroso@oldbytes.space]

@symbolics Neatly separated.

@aartaka