You never have to stop for a lengthy compilation cycle.[3]
Other features that support a flowing, interactive programming style are Lisp's dynamic typing and the Common Lisp condition system. Because of the former, you spend less time convincing the compiler you should be allowed to run your code and more time actually running it and working on it,[4] and the latter lets you develop even your error handling code interactively.
Another consequence of being 'a programmable programming language' is that Common Lisp, in addition to incorporating small changes that make particular programs easier to write, can easily adopt big new ideas about how programming languages should work. For instance, the original implementation of the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), Common Lisp's powerful object system, was as a library written in portable Common Lisp. This allowed Lisp programmers to gain actual experience with the facilities it provided before it was officially incorporated into the language.
Whatever new paradigm comes down the pike next, it's extremely likely that Common Lisp will be able to absorb it without requiring any changes to the core language. For example, a Lisper has recently written a library, AspectL, that adds support for aspect-oriented programming (AOP) to Common Lisp.[5] If AOP turns out to be the next big thing, Common Lisp will be able to support it without any changes to the base language and without extra preprocessors and extra compilers.[6]
Common Lisp is the modern descendant of the Lisp language first conceived by John McCarthy in 1956. Lisp circa 1956 was designed for 'symbolic data processing'[7] and derived its name from one of the things it was quite good at: LISt Processing. We've come a long way since then: Common Lisp sports as fine an array of modern data types as you can ask for: a condition system that, as you'll see in Chapter 19, provides a whole level of flexibility missing from the exception systems of languages such as Java, Python, and C++; powerful facilities for doing object-oriented programming; and several language facilities that just don't exist in other programming languages. How is this possible? What on Earth would provoke the evolution of such a well-equipped language?
Well, McCarthy was (and still is) an artificial intelligence (AI) researcher, and many of the features he built into his initial version of the language made it an excellent language for AI programming. During the AI boom of the 1980s, Lisp remained a favorite tool for programmers writing software to solve hard problems such as automated theorem proving, planning and scheduling, and computer vision. These were problems that required a lot of hard-to-write software; to make a dent in them, AI programmers needed a powerful language, and they grew Lisp into the language they needed. And the Cold War helped—as the Pentagon poured money into the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a lot of it went to folks working on problems such as large-scale battlefield simulations, automated planning, and natural language interfaces. These folks also used Lisp and continued pushing it to do what they needed.
The same forces that drove Lisp's feature evolution also pushed the envelope along other dimensions—big AI problems eat up a lot of computing resources however you code them, and if you run Moore's law in reverse for 20 years, you can imagine how scarce computing resources were on circa-80s hardware. The Lisp guys had to find all kinds of ways to squeeze performance out of their implementations. Modern Common Lisp implementations are the heirs to those early efforts and often include quite sophisticated, native machine code-generating compilers. While today, thanks to Moore's law, it's possible to get usable performance from a purely interpreted language, that's no longer an issue for Common Lisp. As I'll show in Chapter 32, with proper (optional) declarations, a good Lisp compiler can generate machine code quite similar to what might be generated by a C compiler.
The 1980s were also the era of the Lisp Machines, with several companies, most famously Symbolics, producing computers that ran Lisp natively from the chips up. Thus, Lisp became a systems programming language, used for writing the operating system, editors, compilers, and pretty much everything else that ran on the Lisp Machines.
In fact, by the early 1980s, with various AI labs and the Lisp machine vendors all providing their own Lisp implementations, there was such a proliferation of Lisp systems and dialects that the folks at DARPA began to express concern about the Lisp community splintering. To address this concern, a grassroots group of Lisp hackers got together in 1981 and began the process of standardizing a new language called Common Lisp that combined the best features from the existing Lisp dialects. Their work was documented in the book
By 1986 the first Common Lisp implementations were available, and the writing was on the wall for the dialects it was intended to replace. In 1996, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) released a standard for Common Lisp that built on and extended the language specified in CLtL, adding some major new features such as the CLOS and the condition system. And even that wasn't the last word: like CLtL before it, the ANSI standard intentionally leaves room for implementers to experiment with the best way to do things: a full Lisp implementation provides a rich runtime environment with access to GUI widgets, multiple threads of control, TCP/IP sockets, and more. These days Common Lisp is evolving much like other open-source languages—the folks who use it write the libraries they need and often make them available to others. In the last few years, in particular, there has been a spurt of activity in open-source Lisp libraries.
So, on one hand, Lisp is one of computer science's 'classical' languages, based on ideas that have stood the test of time.[8] On the other, it's a thoroughly modern, general-purpose language whose design reflects a deeply pragmatic approach to solving real problems as efficiently and robustly as possible. The only downside of Lisp's 'classical' heritage is that lots of folks are still walking around with ideas about Lisp based on some particular flavor of Lisp they were exposed to at some particular time in the nearly half century since McCarthy invented Lisp. If someone tells you Lisp is only interpreted, that it's slow, or that you have to use recursion for everything, ask them what dialect of Lisp they're talking about and whether people were wearing bell-bottoms when they learned it.[9]
| But I learned Lisp Once, And It Wasn't Like what you're describing |
| If you've used Lisp in the past, you may have ideas about what 'Lisp' is that have little to do with Common Lisp. While Common Lisp supplanted most of the dialects it's descended from, it isn't the only remaining Lisp dialect, and depending on where and when you were exposed to Lisp, you may very well have learned one of these other dialects. Other than Common Lisp, the one general-purpose Lisp dialect that still has an active user community is Scheme. Common Lisp borrowed a few important features from Scheme but never intended to replace it. Originally designed at M.I.T., where it was quickly put to use as a teaching language for undergraduate computer science courses, Scheme has always been aimed at a different language niche than Common Lisp. In particular, Scheme's designers have focused on keeping the core language as small and as simple as possible. This has obvious benefits for a teaching language and also for programming language researchers who like to be able to formally prove things about languages. It also has the benefit of making it relatively easy to understand the whole language as specified in the standard. But, it does so at the cost of omitting many useful features that are standardized in Common Lisp. Individual Scheme implementations may provide these features in implementation-specific ways, but their omission from the standard makes it harder to write portable Scheme code than to write portable Common Lisp code. Scheme also emphasizes a functional programming style and the use of recursion much more than Common Lisp does. If you studied Lisp in college and came away with the impression that it was only an academic language with no real-world application, chances are you learned Scheme. This isn't to say that's a particularly fair characterization of Scheme, but it's even less applicable to Common Lisp, which was expressly designed to be a real-world engineering language rather than a theoretically 'pure' language. |
