Dear /g/, is this the future? Will PHP and Python finally b

Hopefully. It's really well-engineered.

Fuck I love crystal. However, it doesn't support parallelism, which is a downside. I made a thread on this before, it's as fast as C but as easy and comfy as Ruby.

File: jmccolor.jpg (49KB, 476x659px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 476x659px

Lisp is the one true path, all who stray are destined to suffer.

>>61606817
Lisp, by nature, compromises performance.

Are there any languages that (probably) won't go away in the close to mid term future?

>>61606797
Check their blog actually, they're working on it right now, with a go-inspired solution.

>>61606831
To C/C++, maybe. To PHP and Python? No.

>>61606841
Lisp has been around since the 50's and is still seeing use. Lisp is the past. Lisp is the future. Lisp is all that is right. Lisp is all that is wrong. Lisp is life. Lisp is death. Lisp is the Tao.

>>61606856
>is still seeing use.
Where?
I'd love to get a job as a Lisp/Scheme dev, but I never see any companies advertising it.

File: 273fe8631cf4f18e104ba9d066caa11bac641cedbd5656d5f14a51796c3e352e.jpg (30KB, 530x298px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 530x298px

>>61606845

>>61606649
First, they should get it finished. Otherwise, not.
>>61606817
Lisp, like REBOL, Forth, SMALLTALK and other simplistic, minimalistic crap is the true path of autism that leads right into the trash.

>>61606649
>https://crystal-lang.org/
Does it have a good type system? What is the unit testing support like?

>>61606860
https://www.grammarly.com/
Uses it in production.

>>61606873
>Lisp, like REBOL, Forth, SMALLTALK and other simplistic, minimalistic crap is the true path of autism that leads right into the trash.

It seems you have autism if you think complexity is ever the answer.

Lisp is probably one of the most complex languages ever created, by being one of the simplest.

>>61606797
A non-issue if you're writing a server that only communicates with a database -- just spawn multiple instances.

>GC
Trashed.

>>61606649
Finally the hipsters can move off my node.

>>61606943
What's the alternative? Error-prone manual memory management? Linear types?

>>61606892
>It seems you have autism if you think complexity is ever the answer.
There is required complexity which Lisp doesn't provide.
>Lisp is probably one of the most complex languages ever created, by being one of the simplest.
That's just the wrong angle for complexity, because the complexity better is once in the compiler than in the autismal projects that reimplement language features over and over again.

>>61606831
why?

>>61606943
Works well enough for most RAD applications.
And a good GC provides more throughput/lower latencies than (((You))) with manual memory management.

>>61606956
Move/borrow semantics.

>>61606943
it's not the 1970s anymore grandpa

>>61606957
What language feature is lisp missing? It has more features than every other mainstream languages.

Besides, macros allow you to easily extend the language to the skies beyond.

>>61606874
It has type checking at compile, and proper null checks. All with the things I like about ruby syntax.

I think I am in love.

It just needs a good "Rails" type framework for the Web industry to fully adopt it.

>>61606980
HAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA.
Oh my god, you /have/ to be shitposting.

>>61607025
Go ahead and enjoy your designated shitting GC.

>>61607074
Linear typing is really the only solution, dude. C++'s semantics are shit compared to rusts (which is... technically affine typing).

>>61606649
Is the community as bad as rusts?

>>61606649
I'm currently learning it and I think I fell in love. Wish I had more time for it.

>>61606992
Should happen when it actually releases. They hope to finish 1.0 this year.

>>61607119
bro what community

>>61606990
>What language feature is lisp missing? It has more features than every other mainstream languages.
How about a proper standard with standardized file import, static typing by default, proper, full Unicode string handling and distinct syntax for certain language features like loops and function blocks because that increases visible discoverability empirically, as you can read somewhere over at the Quorum project.
Also, introduce a clear distinction between runtime and compile time and extroduce the REPL, a feature not actually that useful and abused when actually data driven programming is in order.
>Besides, macros allow you to easily extend the language to the skies beyond.
Just like in every language with macros, but the point is you shouldn't have to implement things that should be in the language to begin with.

The best feature about this thing is the native C binding. I'm writing a kernel with it and it makes like so much more easier. What i'm not used to, however, is the focus on OOP. I thought /g/ was against these "everything is an object" languages

>>61607136
>How about a proper standard with standardized file import
It has this
>static typing by default
Why? Go back to haskell if you can't handle the freedom.
> full Unicode string handling and distinct syntax
Has.
>loops and function blocks because that increases visible discoverability empirically
Take you're head out of your ass. Might as well take out those 17 black migrant dicks, too. There is no reason why this matter.
>introduce a clear distinction between runtime and compile time and extroduce the REPL

eval-when. Its standard, idiot. The repl is the most important feature of lisp.

You honestly don't understand a lick of programming do you? Have you even held a programming job?

>>61606988
Exactly, we have linear types and we don't need any hacks from the 60s like GC.

>>61607192
linear types restrict expression. Its a balancing act. One side you have languages like lisp, which offer full freedom and expression. On the other end you have Coq, which isn't even Turing complete, but hey, if you do it right, you'll never have a bug ;)

>>61607180
>How about a proper standard with standardized file import
>It has this
ASDF proves you wrong. A library to supplement imports shouldn't exist.
>static typing by default
>Why? Go back to haskell if you can't handle the freedom.
>t. nondev
> full Unicode string handling and distinct syntax
>Has.
It hasn't. Thinking of strings as arrays of 8bit entities isn't.
>loops and function blocks because that increases visible discoverability empirically
>Take you're head out of your ass. Might as well take out those 17 black migrant dicks, too. There is no reason why this matter.
You're right, readability sure isn't important. Sure convinced me with those hot opinions.
>introduce a clear distinction between runtime and compile time and extroduce the REPL
>eval-when. Its standard.
So are C headers. They are shit as well.
>The repl is the most important feature of lisp.
No, the most important feature of lisp are macros, everything else is dogshit.
>You honestly don't understand a lick of programming do you? Have you even held a programming job?
I actually program professionally therefore my fact-based statements, unlike you who jacks of to loli pron in the basement because you couldn't handle a job.

>>61607311
>Thinking of strings as arrays of 8bit entities isn't.
this isn't how it works. Char is a seperate type completely and its bit size isn't specified by the standard.

>I actually program professionally therefore my fact-based statements,

:) Nice LARP.

>>61607311
Jacking off to loli porn in my basement doesn't mean I don't have a job.

>>61606831
In this context, Lisp would likely be a lot faster than the alternatives.

>>61606649
It looks nice but it will be years before I would take a risk using it. To hard finding people to hire that are willIng to learn and work in a new language.