
Pragmatic reasons for choosing Common Lisp (2017) - gibsonf1
https://www.darkchestnut.com/2017/pragmatic-reasons-for-choosing-common-lisp/
======
delish
Sometimes I see articles with tables and decision trees regarding language
choice. I find it funny, because if I was doing any old thing, I'd use
$typical_lang, and if I was writing a script, I'd use bash-and-not-python-
because-I-don't-know-python. If I craved novelty, I'd use $not_blub.

If I thought everyone was like me, I'd joke at this author, "Come on. You
wanted to use CL and you needed justification." But I suppose there are people
who are not like me, who decide how this author decides.

Ok I'll take my own bait: Why not Java? Depite not compiling to a native
executable, It'll be faster than Ruby, Python, and Scheme. Deployment is a jar
file. More than adequate GUI tools. As regards language stability, the
language committee is conservative. To me, the answer is, "Because the author
already knows Ruby, Python, Scheme, and Common Lisp, and already-knowing a
language is huge." But of course: I'm baiting because I'm projecting : ).

Or why not Haskell?

~~~
_bxg1
Or at the very least, why not Clojure? I'm unaware of _any_ advantage CL has
over it at this point.

~~~
pepper_sauce
A wide variety of implementations

Performance

save-lisp-and-die

CLOS

LOOP

Conditions system

If you need to build what Hickey calls a "situated program", Clojure is a
great choice, but that's not the only type of environment we need to run
programs.

------
PeterStuer
You should look into CLOS though. It will really impact the way you code Lisp.
Even those that will never code in Lisp can benefit from looking into its
approach to object paradigms.

