> Common Lisp still has some activity, mainly coming from SBCL, but is a bit stagnant. It has a fantastic literature and many mature implementations.
There are a number of improvements I’d like to see to the core language, but in general I think Common Lisp is more ‘complete’ than it is ‘stagnant.’ I.e., it enables one to write software which is performant, dynamic, able to handle errors as they occur &c.
I recommend it over Scheme in large part because it is so complete, over Racket because it has multiple implementations and over Clojure because I like that it’s multi-paradigm. But tastes differ, and that’s okay.
I like that Common Lisp isn’t afflicted with flavour-of-the-month syndrome. There are libraries for Lisp which have been around, essentially untouched, for years and which still work correctly. Done right, the first time — what a concept!
There are a number of improvements I’d like to see to the core language, but in general I think Common Lisp is more ‘complete’ than it is ‘stagnant.’ I.e., it enables one to write software which is performant, dynamic, able to handle errors as they occur &c.
I recommend it over Scheme in large part because it is so complete, over Racket because it has multiple implementations and over Clojure because I like that it’s multi-paradigm. But tastes differ, and that’s okay.
I like that Common Lisp isn’t afflicted with flavour-of-the-month syndrome. There are libraries for Lisp which have been around, essentially untouched, for years and which still work correctly. Done right, the first time — what a concept!