@vnikolov @tusharhero @evgandr @mdhughes @screwlisp

For me the one true editor was a dos program, qedit.

When I went to Linux I chose gedit as the most functionally equivalent to qedit even if it didn't have the feature set. When gedit lost it's way I followed pluma down the fork.

I am learning Emacs as an IDE for common lisp. My guru is @screwlisp and I am trying to understand his document.

https://screwlisp.small-web.org/fundamental/installing-lisp-etc/

I am totally uninterested in the vim/emacs wars.

@phil My personal preference is none of the Lisp-specific package managers. I use #Guix for managing all kinds of packages, including #CommonLisp. Guix also builds on ASDF, but also handles non-Lisp dependencies (mostly C libraries), which is nice.

@screwlisp

@phil There are three layers to code management in #CommonLisp:

0. The language standard, which is very basic: you can load source code files.

1. ASDF, which manages "systems" (roughly collections of source code files, plus tests etc.) and their dependencies. If all the code you need is in your local file system, ASDF is all you need. It's also a de-facto standard, in that all modern implementations support it

2. Package managers, which download systems to the local file system.

@screwlisp

<">
I think some people do either end up not using slime, or not using sbcl’s ext:save-lisp-and-die to save and resume their universe lisp image core when they are using slime. When you should use both.
</">

Good points.
I'll make a weaker statement.
You don't _have_ to use them.
Your mode of operation will vary.
But you must make an __informed__ decision whether to use them or not.

#CommonLisp

@screwlisp

> As much as CL is 'standardized', it doesn't appear to have a standard way of interaction with the ecosystem.

Aside:
as a language, Common Lisp _is_ standardized, no quotes.
Yes, it is unfortunate that (official) standardization didn't get around to doing more.
Simplistically, blame it on the first AI winter.

I think most people's problem with Lisp is that it wins no popularity contests.
Like Shakespeare's Banquo from the Play, it begat kings though it was none.

#CommonLisp

@phil @screwlisp

> ANSI CL does not call for or need TCO as such.

My impression is that the ANSI committee didn't want to burden implementors by mandating tail call elimination (it is easier in Scheme), but don't take my word for it.
Besides, a stack overflow can be of great help to tackle endless loops, though that is a different story.

> DO exists because it is exactly like one common case of TCO.

Yes.

#CommonLisp

By the way, TCO as a TLA sounds like an OS/MVS thing...

@screwlisp @AverageDog

@deech For the practicalities of working with #CommonLisp, the Common Lisp Cookbook is a good resource:

https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/

@ksaj @pkw @deech
oh, yeah, good book.

When I first went to read the art of the metaobject protocol and I got to where it says "if you are new to the common lisp object system, go read Sonya Keene's Object-oriented Programming in Common LISP: A Programmer's Guide to CLOS now then come back afterwards"

but I made the mistake of trying to read AMOP first (which I did not much understand or retain). #AMOP #bookstodon #commonLisp