The repls you mention are not like lisp repls. You're being downvoted because your comment makes it sound like you've never programmed a lisp but have strong opinions nonetheless.
Maybe the ability to send expression from the IDE into the REPL with one keybind but I cannot say it's not possible with the Kotlin one right now because that's not what I use it for.
To my knowledge there’s no real “mainstream” language that goes all in on interactive development. Breakpoints and traceback are all perfectly cromulent ways to debug, but it’s really not the same, sadly.
There are some other affordances for interactive programming, such as a standard way to update existing instances of classes. I’m sure you could implement this sort of functionality in any language, but this is universal and comes for free in Common Lisp.
CL also has other interesting features such as macros, multiple dispatch, compilation at runtime, and being able to save a memory snapshot of the program. It’s quite unique.
It does make me wonder how aplicable this way of programming is to what I do at work but that is more because of the technologies and architectural choices where most of the work is plumbing stuff that is not local to the program itself together. And maybe even for that with the edges mocked out it would make sense to work like this.
Again, interesting video that made me think. Thanks.
Being able to interactively update code in response to an error, without leaving the error context and being able to restart stack frames (not just a “catch” or top level, as in most languages) is one of the key features that makes REPL-driven development possible. Or at least that’s how I see it.
It’s not something you always need to use, but it can be handy, especially for prototyping and validating fixes.
i've written racket and clojure (and mathematica, which is a lisp). not multiple 10kloc but enough to understand what the big ideas are. claiming i just haven't written enough lisp is basically the logical fallacy of assuming the premise.
http://xahlee.info/M/lisp_vs_WolframLang.html
> WolframLang has all the characteristics of LISP:
seems you either don't know what lisp is or you've never written mathematica
Meanwhile, you brought up examples from Mathematica docs that talk about head/tails (car/cdr) but by that logic, Python is a Lisp too because you have:
list[0]
list[1:]
"Mathematica expressions are in many respects like LISP lists. In Mathematica, however, expressions are the lowest-level objects accessible to the user. LISP allows you to go below lists, and access the binary trees from which they are built."
That right there is telling you that Mathematica is not a Lisp.
Edit: Corrected the Python list example.
>list[0] and list[-1]
That is not car and cdr; closer would be list[0] and list[1:] if lists were cons in python.
>Mathematica expressions are in many respects like LISP lists. In Mathematica, however, expressions are the lowest-level objects accessible to the user. LISP allows you to go below lists, and access the binary trees from which they are built
This is a quote from 1986. I wonder if the language has changed much since then
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/Expressions....
Mathematica is a symbolic language based on 'rewriting' There are other examples - Prolog would be an example, a logic language. Also most other computer algebra systems are in this category, similar to Mathematica: Macsyma/Maxima, Axiom, ...
> WolframLang has all the characteristics of LISP
It has many, but there are a lot of differences, too.
The big difference is the actual engine. Mathematica is based on a 'rewrite system'. It translates expressions by applying rewrite rules.
Lisp evaluates expressions either based on an interpreted evaluator or by evaluating compiled code. Lisp has macros, but those can be transformed before the code is compiled or running. The practical effect is that in many Lisp implementations usually all code is compiled, incl. user code. Mathematica uses C++ then. Most of the UI in Mathematica is implemented in C++, where many Lisp systems would implement that in native compiled Lisp.
Thus the computation is very different. Using a rewrite system for programming is quite clunky and inefficient under the hood. A simple example would be to look how lexical closures are implemented.
Another difference is that Mathematica does not expose the data representation of programs to the user all the time, where Lisp programs are also on the surface written as s-expressions (aka symbolic expressions) in text.
The linked page from the Mathematica book also claims that Mathematica is a higher level language. Which is true. Lisp is lower level and languages like the Wolfram Language can be implemented in it. That's one of its original purposes: it's an implementation language for other ('higher-level') languages. Sometimes it already comes with embedded higher-level languages. CLOS + MOP (the meta-object protocol) would be an example for that.
I have already addressed this: FullForm
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/Expressions....
>Thus the computation is very different. Using a rewrite system for programming is quite clunky and inefficient under the hood. A simple example would be to look how lexical closures are implemented.
You're skimming a couple of paragraphs without actually knowing much about Mathematica. It's absolutely not the case that Mathematica is purely a redex system; it's just that it's very good at beta reduction because it has a strong focus on CAS features.
No you haven't addressed it. The "Wolfram Language" user typically does not write code in FullForm. It's used as an internal representation.
> it's just that it's very good at beta reduction
and not so good at compiling code...
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Compile.html
See "Details and Options"
I have no clue what you're talking about - it's an available primitive and I use it all the time.
>and not so good at compiling code...
Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled.
That's not good. Try again.
In Lisp adding two numbers looks like this is source code: (+ 1 2)
CL-USER 41 > (+ 1 2)
3
CL-USER 42 > (quote (+ 1 2))
(+ 1 2)
Not so in "Wolfram Language": a + b has a FullForm which looks differently. The user does not write ALL of the code in FullForm notation.
Source notation
a + b
Plus[a, b]
Source notation
(+ a b)
(+ a b)
> Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled.
I'd expect that they can. That's a feature since 1962. SBCL for example does AOT compilation by default, always.
* (disassemble (lambda (a) (+ a 42)))
; disassembly for (LAMBDA (A))
; Size: 36 bytes. Origin: #x7006DC83B4 ; (LAMBDA (A))
; B4: AA0A40F9 LDR R0, [THREAD, #16] ; binding-stack-pointer
; B8: 4A0B00F9 STR R0, [CFP, #16]
; BC: EA030CAA MOV R0, R2
; C0: 8B0A80D2 MOVZ R1, #84
; C4: 3CAA80D2 MOVZ TMP, #1361
; C8: BE6B7CF8 LDR LR, [NULL, TMP] ; SB-KERNEL:TWO-ARG-+
; CC: DE130091 ADD LR, LR, #4
; D0: C0031FD6 BR LR
; D4: E00120D4 BRK #15 ; Invalid argument count trap
NIL
How can I make this any more clear? You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b
> I'd expect that they can.
Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled.
Sure, but it is not Mathematica's InputForm:
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html
The majority of code is written not in FullForm. In Lisp 100% of the code is written in s-expressions.
> Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled.
Typical Lisp and Lisp dialects all can be compiled: Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Scheme, Racket, ...
Which Lisps can not be compiled?
Do you really know what you're talking about here?
https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html
>The raco make command accept filenames for Racket modules to be compiled to bytecode format.
That's not a compiler...
I don't claim to be an expert on lisp, so further googling I find
https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-with...
which has some discussion about this and that native backend.
Suffice it to say I am not any more confident that being compilable is somehow intrinsic to lisp.
https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html
"18.7.1.2 CS Compilation Modes
The CS implementation of Racket supports several compilation modes: machine code, machine-independent, interpreted, and JIT. Machine code is the primary mode, and the machine-independent mode is the same as for BC."
CS is the new implementation of Racket on top of the Chez Scheme runtime. Chez Scheme is known for its excellent machine code compiler.
"Machine code is the primary mode"
> Do you really know what you're talking about here?
Read above.
Ahead-of-time compiling has been the principal method in mainstream Lisps going back to the 1960's. The Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual from 1962 describes ahead-of-time compiling.
The curious thing is how can you be "100% sure" in making a completely wrong statement, rather than some lower number, like "12% sure".
The reason is very simple and surprisingly straightforward (but requires some understanding of compilers): dynamically typed languages that are amenable to interpreter implementations are very hard to compile AOT. Now note I have since the beginning emphasized AOT - ahead of time - but this does not preclude JITs.
But in reality I don't really care about this aspect - it was the other guy who for whatever reason decided to flaunt that clisp can be compiled when comparing it with Mathematica.
CL-USER> (defun foobar (x) (1+ x))
FOOBAR
CL-USER> (disassemble #'foobar)
; disassembly for FOOBAR
; Size: 35 bytes. Origin: #x5365BF44 ; FOOBAR
; 44: 498B4510 MOV RAX, [R13+16] ; thread.binding-stack-pointer
; 48: 488945F8 MOV [RBP-8], RAX
; 4C: BF02000000 MOV EDI, 2
; 51: 488BD3 MOV RDX, RBX
; 54: FF14251001A052 CALL QWORD PTR [#x52A00110] ; SB-VM::GENERIC-+
; 5B: 488B5DF0 MOV RBX, [RBP-16]
; 5F: 488BE5 MOV RSP, RBP
; 62: F8 CLC
; 63: 5D POP RBP
; 64: C3 RET
; 65: CC10 INT3 16 ; Invalid argument count trap
NIL
CL-USER>