5:46:53drmeisterA reason to use it is if you have C++ libraries you want to drive from Common Lisp. Nobody has taken me up on that lately.
5:47:45drmeisterI'm developing it as a computer aided molecular design environment. That requires a lot more than just Common Lisp - that's what I've been working on.
5:50:58otwieraczYep, I've got the context. I was just curious about current status.
10:32:28caffei might as well get this out of the way: i'm new to lisp. i'll try and stick to docs before asking for help here. i may inevitably ask a stupid question at some point, but i'll try and keep it to a minimum.
10:32:48antoszkaloke: Yeah, they just probably weren't interested.
10:33:06antoszkaloke: nvm, looking into totally non-IT related stuff for the near future
10:51:22caffeso far, i've mostly been learning s-expression, and how to use the REPL as a calculator
10:52:01antoszkacaffe: and I supposed most people here will suggest you stick to Common Lisp – treat elisp as a tool for configuring emacs, the dialect itself isn't very pretty.
10:52:51caffeyeah, i got the same impression... at first i was going to start with it, but most of its builtins(?) seem oriented towards text manipulation above all else
11:08:15lokecaffe: Search for TAGBODY in this chapter of PCL: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/the-special-operators.html
11:09:41antoszkaThere's a nice article/rant on the presence of CLOS in CL by Naggum, but can't find it now.
11:09:53antoszkahttp://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/search?q=clos+ ← somewhere in here, I suppose.
11:10:03lokeantoszka: Let me guess, he didn't like it?
11:10:20antoszkaNo, he actually didn't like people pretending it's not there ;)
11:10:28antoszkaI think he quite admired the design.
11:10:39lokeantoszka: OK, that's quite a reasonable point.
11:11:02lokeI have to admit that I started out thinking that CLOS was complicated and just ignored it for a while. Then I realised just how wrong I was.
11:11:36caffei've had the same bias about OO in general for a while
11:21:52caffeshka: i'm not used to any OO at all as of yet, but i'll take that as good news
11:22:19caffei'm used to very 'dumb' languages, and making very 'dumb' programs
11:23:05schweersI’m not sure 'dumb' is the right term. 'limited' seems more accurate to me
11:23:07lokecaffe: You can write very dumb programs in CL too
11:23:24caffe i mean 'dumb' as in close to the metal
11:23:25schweersas much as I’d like the contrary to be true: using CL to write a program doesn’t automatically make it 'smart'
11:24:09_deaththe other day I "reversed" ql-setup::dumb-string-hash.. the result was still dumb though
11:26:29caffei mostly mean in what the language or programming environment has to offer... in assembly, for example; not much is really done for you. you have to do everything yourself. C is the same to some extent.