7 ms·

I gave years using parenscript [1] to create web-apps and as a sole developer on the project it totally won me over. Lisp macros + javascript. There is such joy

I gave years using parenscript [1] to create web-apps and as a sole developer on the project it totally won me over. Lisp macros + javascript. There is such joy in being able to mold the language to your needs and to completely eliminate any boiler plate duplicate code. Combined with SLIME + SBCL and you have a completely live javascript exprience. Even pushing code to the browser, no reload necessary. [1] https://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/ https://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/

RaycatRakittra 6y ago
Every time I hear a glowing testimony like this, I get a little hopeful but then I remember the current state of the JavaScript ecosystem. Perhaps you could shed some light on this? Is it possible to make externs or definitions of library functions? How much time does it take to take a fresh library and write those externs to access them in Parenscript land? And what limitations did you run into? Cheers.
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
  Parenscript is nice because you don’t need complicated externs: it has a pretty straightforward mapping to JS symbols and no runtime. However, the downside is that it feels more like “JavaScript with a new syntax” than like Common Lisp or another lisp. I personally find the trade-offs acceptable because it’s fees fairly natural to right JS in a lispy style, but it’s not the “pure” experience of something like Clojurescript.
  - moonchild 6y ago
    I've heard good things about jscl[1]; since it's bootstrapped from regular cl, it's probably less javascript-y. 1. https://github.com/jscl-project/jscl https://github.com/jscl-project/jscl
    - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
      The tradeoff is that it actually has a runtime which means it adds to your bundle size and (potentially) makes interop complicated.
lenkite 6y ago
I found Clojurescript https://clojurescript.org/ https://clojurescript.org/ to have a better ecosystem than parenscript.
- konjin 6y ago
  You don't need an ecosystem with lisp. That's been both the reason why it's survived for so long and why it will never be popular.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    You don't need an ecosystem with lisp. Is the implication here that people build on top of ecosystems because they're incapable of implementing things themselves in plain JS, and that lisp will make them capable? That's not the reality I see as a developer. The team I work with are entirely capable of building all the things we need, but we build on an existing ecosystem of open source code because that way we can do more with the available resources. Ecosystems are as much about efficiency as they are about ability.
    - oumua_don17 6y ago
      The problem with ecosystems today is that they lack aesthetic due to leaky abstractions. That Worse is better hasn’t been proven definitively and might never be!!!
    - konjin 6y ago
      The implication is that it is trivially easy to implement what is impossible in other languages in lisp. So you never have to try and follow the moving target of an ever evolving ecosystem. You just pick a language version and build your own with surprising ease. The amount of time you save from breakages upstream is amazing and something no one talks about.
    - flavio81 6y ago
      >Is the implication here that people build on top of ecosystems because they're incapable of implementing things themselves in plain JS, and that lisp will make them capable? Not exactly, but Lisp (specifically Common Lisp but also other lisps) will make far easier to implement whatever is missing thanks to the various features that enable very quick development, quicker than JS or Python. And interfacing with C code is also easy too. Interfacing with Java libs, even easier (using Armed Bear Common Lisp.)
an_ko 6y ago
Fully agree. Parenscript is a great "compatibility layer" if you already know Common Lisp.

RaycatRakittra 6y ago

Every time I hear a glowing testimony like this, I get a little hopeful but then I remember the current state of the JavaScript ecosystem. Perhaps you could shed some light on this? Is it possible to make externs or definitions of library functions? How much time does it take to take a fresh library and write those externs to access them in Parenscript land? And what limitations did you run into? Cheers.

fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
Parenscript is nice because you don’t need complicated externs: it has a pretty straightforward mapping to JS symbols and no runtime. However, the downside is that it feels more like “JavaScript with a new syntax” than like Common Lisp or another lisp. I personally find the trade-offs acceptable because it’s fees fairly natural to right JS in a lispy style, but it’s not the “pure” experience of something like Clojurescript.
- moonchild 6y ago
  I've heard good things about jscl[1]; since it's bootstrapped from regular cl, it's probably less javascript-y. 1. https://github.com/jscl-project/jscl https://github.com/jscl-project/jscl
  - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
    The tradeoff is that it actually has a runtime which means it adds to your bundle size and (potentially) makes interop complicated.

lenkite 6y ago

I found Clojurescript https://clojurescript.org/ https://clojurescript.org/ to have a better ecosystem than parenscript.

konjin 6y ago
You don't need an ecosystem with lisp. That's been both the reason why it's survived for so long and why it will never be popular.
- onion2k 6y ago
  You don't need an ecosystem with lisp. Is the implication here that people build on top of ecosystems because they're incapable of implementing things themselves in plain JS, and that lisp will make them capable? That's not the reality I see as a developer. The team I work with are entirely capable of building all the things we need, but we build on an existing ecosystem of open source code because that way we can do more with the available resources. Ecosystems are as much about efficiency as they are about ability.
  - oumua_don17 6y ago
    The problem with ecosystems today is that they lack aesthetic due to leaky abstractions. That Worse is better hasn’t been proven definitively and might never be!!!
  - konjin 6y ago
    The implication is that it is trivially easy to implement what is impossible in other languages in lisp. So you never have to try and follow the moving target of an ever evolving ecosystem. You just pick a language version and build your own with surprising ease. The amount of time you save from breakages upstream is amazing and something no one talks about.
  - flavio81 6y ago
    >Is the implication here that people build on top of ecosystems because they're incapable of implementing things themselves in plain JS, and that lisp will make them capable? Not exactly, but Lisp (specifically Common Lisp but also other lisps) will make far easier to implement whatever is missing thanks to the various features that enable very quick development, quicker than JS or Python. And interfacing with C code is also easy too. Interfacing with Java libs, even easier (using Armed Bear Common Lisp.)

an_ko 6y ago

Fully agree. Parenscript is a great "compatibility layer" if you already know Common Lisp.