1. 26
  1.  

  2. 4

    About editors: Atom with the SLIMA extension is nearly as good as Slime. It has the most importants bits: interactive debugger, good REPL interaction, etc.

    1. 2

      Does Atom have something like paredit/smartparens/lispy for structural editing of S-expressions?

    2. 2

      Myth: Common Lisp is a procedural, object-oriented language.

      Is that what people are saying about it now? I’ve never heard CL be accused of being either of those things. It was always accused of being “functional”.

      1. 6

        New directive from the Common Lisp Central Comittee: “We Have Always Been Functional”.

        <a weary sigh arises from the Emacs buffer *Ministry of Truth*>

      2. 2

        I’m a little miffed that, five years or so after last trying to use CL seriously, Quicklisp is still not the de-facto package system and still does not have easy packages in every Linux distro.

        1. 4

          I’m pretty sure Quicklisp is the de-facto package system. ASDF is the build system, and is used by quicklisp. See also the question “How is Quicklisp related to ASDF?” here: https://www.quicklisp.org/beta/faq.html

          1. 3

            Perhaps what @icefox means (and what I sometimes long for) is that implementations do not ship with it in their image. This would make using packages in scripts a lot easier.

            1. 2

              Is that partly due to the fact that Quicklisp blurs the line between upgrades to Quicklisp itself, and upgrades to the collection of libraries it can install? To be clear, I used to write CL a decade ago, but I’ve not kept up; if my question doesn’t make sense, please call me out on it.

              1. 1

                I don’t know. I do not feel that line is very blurry :-)