Lisp

Install Gentoo

>>56244856
It's a jewish language.

>>56244856
Lisp and Scheme are pretty awesome, no doubt. CL seems to have the same use cases as Python, and similar performance characteristics too, so I guess they are direct competitors. I don't know enough CL to say that it's more versatile, but that wouldn't surprise me at all.
That said, Python has cleaner, more C-like syntax, fewer competing dialects, more recent documentation, more stack overflow questions among other things.
I'd really like to see a list of reasons why it would be better to use CL (or one of its many implementations) over Python.

File: ahitler.jpg (25KB, 257x311px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 257x311px

>>56245087
well it certainly is efficient

python is imperative so writing code in it is more similar to how the code will actually be interpreted and executed

lisp is neat because it's functional but generally nobody gives a shit about functional languages because they abstract execution a lot

Install Clojure.

>>56246475
>python is imperative so writing code in it is more similar to how the code will actually be interpreted and executed
Completely wrong
>lisp is neat because it's functional but generally nobody gives a shit about functional languages because they abstract execution a lot
Completely right

>>56244856
because you can't use it to make video games duh

>>56247658
>what is CL-opengl

>>56244856
Duh
name one thing Lisp does better than any other language
>inb4 Lisp is good at having a shitton of parentheses

>>56245442
>python syntax
>cleaner than lisp syntax
Nah. Python syntax is a fucking mess. The divide between statements and expressions, for example, is confusing which makes lambda expressions somewhat unwieldy. Lisp's syntax is beautiful pure s-expressions all the way down.

>>56248884
The scheme side of things does macros much better than most other languages.

>>56248884
>>inb4 Lisp is good at having a shitton of parentheses
I was taught that I should always check for left/right parenthesis balance. If I saw one out on its own it was sure to be up to no good.

This is the age of OOP

>>56245874
>>/pol/

>>56247932
Useless, because CL isn't fast enough for software that isn't a simple numeric benchmark. There is no high level game framework.

So basically, there is no incentive for both, AAA games and small indie games.

>>56248997
>The scheme side of things does macros much better than most other languages.
Unfortunately that doesen't make it a good programming language.

>>56250174
Fortunately the rest of the standard (what little there is) is also great. Most implementations have a big standard library and are good languages in and of themselves.

>>56244856
>very little in the way of intelligent tooling or IDE's
>comparatively few libraries for popular projects
>easy to read, but not for people coming from other languages
>very old, scattered community that can be hard to interact with for new users
>no obvious-new-users "killer app" where it clearly outperforms other languages in some way
>most discussed benefit (homoiconicity) is difficult to explain to new users, and the language feature that builds off of that (macros) is often one of the least used by those new users and are often discouraged for regular use anyway
>not such a great community
>had virtually nothing in the way of a package manager until recently
>competing dialects
There's a lot of reasons. It's a very good language, and I use it all the time. I'd even recommend it over any other language for new programmers because it's so damn easy to learn, but sooner or later you will run into a wall and think to yourself "why the fuck am I dealing with this".

>>56246475
Lisp is not a functional language. It's just that the set of people who program in "obscure" languages like lisps often intersect the set of people who program functionally. Common Lisp has much more powerful OOP abstractions than functional ones. Scheme is fairly functional though, and most idiomatic scheme tends towards functional programming, but it makes no effort to prevent imperative or OOP programming other than making statefulness explicit instead of implicit, which was (in my opinion) the "Right Thing".

>>56250032
>OOP IN LOO

>>56250159
Naughty Dog software has used Lisp in all of their video games since Crash Bandicoot bud. One of the employees gave a talk about using Lisp pretty recently, but I can't find it. Here's the closest thing I could find, where they mention doing their fight scripting in a languaged written in Lisp, iirc Racket lisp for embedding:
http://swisshelm.org/games/uncharted3/index.html

It's not Common Lisp though. I don't know of any AAA video games or studios using that.

>>56250101
>>/out/

>>56250279
>weak bait

>>56250441
>game event scripting
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

>>56250627
>Lisp isn't used in AAA video games
>yes it is, one studio uses it for all their scripting
>that doesn't count!
Okay, bud.

Here's a clip from the Lisp Game Jam though.
https://twitter.com/jplur_/status/763359436710744064

>>56250611
I've tried to support my argument. What's yours?

>>56250759
it genuinely is fucking nothing though

the 3D engine for naughty dog games was probably not done in lisp

>>56250948
It was not. The tool that packed their game down on to tiny discs while trying to optimize seek times was. They have their own Lisp-based DSL for scripting.

>>56250948
Why would you use a Lisp language for a matrix-based 3D engine requiring memory management and hand-tweaks with a knowledge of a proprietary hardware platforms memory structure when you could just embed one into a existing engine and manipulate it from there?

At first you were complaining that there's no high-level framework, but when you're told that that high-level framework was developed and used by a AAA studio, you say what you really meant was the exact opposite. A high-level framework for games is completely opposite from a 3D engine.