...how come everyone is rewriting everything in Rust and not Lisp?
If Lisp is so great
Caleb Sullivan
Other urls found in this thread:
Robert Brooks
because people who rewrite in rust are either learning rust and need something to practice or try to make a program more strict and memory safe.
Lisp is the opposite of the latter.
Ayden Foster
>opposite of the latter
>t. retard whose never used common lisp
Samuel Bennett
>>t. retard whose never used common lisp
Why is it that devs who use common lisp are so unproductive?
They never ship what they're building.
Xavier Powell
Show me that place where lisp is strict?
Jacob Garcia
idk man in the past month ive seen a regex compiler outperforming rust's regex compiler, constant work on a midi player, an entire web framework, and some guy maintaining an entire audio synthesizer, all projects from separate people
Easy; bounds checking isnt a feature that gets silently disabled (unlike rust).
Parker Edwards
Mostly because they haven't seen the light, but also lisp isn't adapted to write efficient, low-level code so in those cases Rust is ok
Juan Flores
>isn't adapted to write efficient, low-level code
It's not?
I remember there was something called Lisp Assembly Program (LAP) that was good for low level stuff.
Hudson Morales
I mean you could very easily write a "lisp" that just compiled to Rust, but while it would have a lispy syntax it wouldn't really be "a" lisp. Usually when people say lisp they imply common lisp. And even then I guess it's not impossible to do low-level stuff, but having tried it's definitely not the best tool for the job.
Matthew Butler
Posting classic thread, look at lispfags seethe. The longer the thread goes the crazier they get.
archive.is
Grayson Sanders
Checked.
What do you have against Lispfags?
Ryder Hill
do you not know what a list is or is it that you dont know what an array is
Gavin Cruz
I think pure functional languages are a good way to learn functional principles in "the way it's meant to be played", but use that knowledge in multiparadigm or OOP languages to make better code overall.
Evan Cooper
They're posers wasting everyones time. Liars, pretty much, by lying to people that Lisp is superior but it only takes a little poking to push finger through their paper balloon and see there is nothing behind it.
Gabriel Jenkins
Is there any language that truly is what Lisp fags say Lisp is?
Luis Sanchez
No. I think lispfags are so delusional becasue they are literally living in past, ruminating about lisp machines etc and reposting shit from half a century ago complaining about C. That's the issue really. They might even be right about their complaints and superiority if this was the year 1975. But it fucking isnt.
Brody Russell
>in the past
Do you know, by any chance, what language are quantum computers programmed in,
Andrew Miller
Smalltalk
Elijah Flores
looks like assembly/c to me now that you made me look
Adam Collins
>if this was the year 1975. But it fucking isnt.
But it should be.
Everything that came after about 1980 is bloat anyway. BSD had TCP support in 1980, and it worked perfectly fine. We should start building Lisp machines again and take away smartphones.
Aiden Lee
>c
Cope
Easton Sanchez
>lisp machines
The OS they ran allowed every part of it being reprogrammed using lisp. This is why they were good. Modern cyber security doesn't really allow that. So it's just gonna be another unix clone but written in lisp. Doesn't make much sense.