ebzzry's comments

Actually, they thought that the Esperanto word for forge, is «forgejo». When somebody pointed out, that «forgejo» (fora gejo -> forgejo) is «faraway gay person», it was already too late. So, now they say that it is inspired by «forĝejo», which is the word for forge.

One of the best books for that are Esperanto Learning and Using the International Language by David Richardson and Complete Esperanto by Tim Owen.

As one may have already noted, that was precisely my goal. When I said no one, I meant it in the metaphorical sense. It’s not actually about uniqueness, but more of being less in numbers.

Plej verŝajne, neniu el vi ĉi tie komprenos ĉi tiun mesaĝon rekte, sen tradukiloj. Tamen, por oni kiuj povas kompreni min, mi devas diri, ke Esperanto vivas tial, ke la lingvo estas permesita por kreskiĝi nature. Jes, mi jam pruvis, ke la lingvo povas esti uzita en teĥnikaj konceptoj. Vidu mian profilon.

Not so much as a bad version of Common Lisp, but a half-baked Lisp. I am well aware that a response like this is bound to stir the opinions of other people about things like this, but I am also bound to express mine. There is not one correct response, and that everything can be considered subjective.

Clojure (on the JVM) is a lisp-y way to talk to the JVM and the rest of its ecosystem. Because it uses s-expressions, it allows for abstractions that are not possible otherwise. I have used Clojure myself in the past. It was fun.

However, there are still many things that are not polished in Clojure that are well-established in Common Lisp. The debugger of Common Lisp is one of the best out there. Its object system is also top class. Backtraces in Common Lisp allow you to get as much information as you can get from your program. Metaprogramming in Common Lisp is also out there in the top. The inverse, however, is not true. You need to have a PhD in JVM in order to read Clojure backtraces. You can easily create a program then dump it into a single executable with Common Lisp, not so much with Clojure. You want fast startup? Not with Clojure.

If you haven’t spent a significant amount of time with the different kind of lisps, it’s hard to make objective comparisons and judgement—everything that Clojure has would look cool and fancy.

I know some people who share the same sentiments that I have, who won’t reply to this thread. However, I’m a fool to even write this response.

The whitepaper is now at https://mimix.io/pdf/on_mimix_v1.3.pdf

Hi everyone, co-founder here. I’d like to know about your experience in using Test Drive. If you’re curious about how we did it, ask us here!

Hi! We’ve tried SiteInspector and it works great. However, it crashes when we try to scan a site. I filed an issue on GitHub regarding it: https://github.com/siteinspector/siteinspector/issues/6

Estas interese, ke je Hacker News ĉi tiu afiŝo atingis.

La parolantojn de aliaj lingvoj, preciple la angla-parolantojn mi ne plu kuraĝigas por Esperanton lerni. Estas malŝparo de energio. Anstataŭe, la lingvon mi uzas sen tiu celo.

Bedaŭrinde, mi ne certas se bonan diskuton pri tiu temo ni povas havi ĉi tie. Se estas parolantoj ĉi tie, mi anticipas ke la nivelo malaltas. Espereble, pli fortan diskuton mi povas havi aŭ vidi.

Kompreneble, mi povas konsenti ke fortas Esperanto. Min mem mi farigis kavio. Mi volis scii, se fakte utilas tiu lingvo. Post preskaŭ kvar monatoj, mi konsciis, ke mi pravis. Jes, fakte funkcias Esperanto. Jes, eĉ la plej bizarajn ideojn mi povas esprimi Esperante. Jes, la lingvon mi subtenos en miaj restantaj jaroj.

I suspect, that when he meant they are the same, he wants to convince the reader about his thoughts and sentiments about it. Norvig is a highly regarded CL author and programmer. Cognitive dissonance is such a powerful phenomenon.

The key problem with this article is, that Norvig cherry-picked features of Lisp that are present with the languages that he contrasts it with. So, what happens then is that it will give the impression that Lisp somehow lost its uniqueness, or whatever makes it stand out among the others. The premises were at best, loaded.

If we’re going to talk about CL, here are some of the features that still make it unique:

  - live update of a running program, including (re)definitions of classes, condition handlers, etc.
  - object system which has multimethods, multiclasses, multidispatch.
  - it has a debugger and stepper which has complete access to the stack, with unwind protection
  - it has a very strong, unhygienic macro system.

The average programmer does not need a lot of these things because:

  - the tasks do not demand those features
  - the programmer doesn’t know them
  - the programmer doesn’t want to or can’t invest time in them

I used paredit before, then I switched to smartparens. I have also tried parinfer, but I didn’t like the way it behaves. I share the sentiments of this blog post https://github.com/noctuid/parinfer-notes

That is one of the reasons why I support Esperanto.

Scsh is not practical when used as an interactive shell. Where it shines, however, is with non-interactive scripting use. I use it everyday.

People who claim that Esperanto is the worse-is-better do not really understand what is it. They merely see Esperanto from a strictly outsider’s view. Esperanto is the better-is-better.

I am an Esperanto speaker. Before I started learning Esperanto, I read that document. Now, I can say that a lot, if not most, of that document is FUD.

I wrote a short introduction to a more portable Common Lisp scripting system—made by Fare, himself—at https://ebzzry.io/en/script-lisp/

Geiser is fine. However, we can’t compare it with SLIME. The integration of the latter is much better.

Scsh is a very powerful shell, that is based on Scheme 48 plus its own additions. It is important to note that it runs on x86_64 with the 0.7 release.