Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Common Lisp doesn't have a standard representation of hash tables, unfortunately.

Ah, but you mentioned objects & arrays, not hash tables grin. Agreed that hash tables would have been nice, although that does then get into issues such as canonical representations (which matter e.g. for hashing).

> Also, CL didn't clean up the Lisp space completely; right now, there are Schemes, there's Clojure, LFE, Hy, and bunch of other niche Lisps, each with their own idiosyncrasies around syntax.

It would be nice if folks who want to use Lisp would use Common Lisp rather than reïnventing various forms of more-or-less round wheel. It's a remarkably well-engineered language (not perfect, of course: argument order, upcasing, pathnames & environments all leap to mind as problematic areas), and so far as I can tell quite a bit better than any of the alternatives.

In particular, it'd be really nice to see people using Schemes for serious engineering work to use Lisp instead. It's just not well-suited to writing large systems, except by grafting on an ad-hoc, informally-specified, potentially bug-ridden subset of Lisp.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: