Diodor: Common Lisp compilers are in a pretty sorry state right now IMO. Not only do they implement 'fringe' functionality(threads, sockets, and everything else that is important today but not in the standard) differently, but even code written to 100% conform to the standard is not portable between compilers. It would take a lot to redo the standard, but IMO it will have to be redone for Lisp to ever catch on again.

Lisp is good for any game that doesn't want to be cookie cutter because the language allows for a level of flexability not available in C++/C#/Python/Java/etc (unless you recreate Lisp in your language of course). The Lisp compilers out there, while not very standards conforming (because the standards do things wrong, simply put), are very good at creating efficient code and are very optimized. I'm fairly certain that making Doom 3 in Lisp would be possible, since 99% of the processing is done in

The above is me. Stupid logout bug =-/

Scheme is the work of demons. While I stand by that phrase, I do feel that it does have a wonderful place in interactive code. There are a bunch of problems that I've had to muddle through in C++ and then realize that writing it in scheme makes it seem like the language was made just for that problem. On the other hand.. I wouldn't go coding a game engine in Scheme/Lisp.

Quote: Original post by falkone
Scheme is the work of demons. While I stand by that phrase, I do feel that it does have a wonderful place in interactive code. There are a bunch of problems that I've had to muddle through in C++ and then realize that writing it in scheme makes it seem like the language was made just for that problem. On the other hand.. I wouldn't go coding a game engine in Scheme/Lisp.

I don't know much about scheme, but I know enough that saying Scheme/Lisp is like saying Java/C or C#/C:
They're the same family of language just like Java and C# and C and they share a little of the syntax, but have a LOT of differences.

I disagree. I think that any of the run-of-the-mill Lisp compilers work jsut fine. Sure, they implement some things differently, but that doesn't mean they don't conform to the standerds, because they do, only the standerd does not specify the things that are implemented differently. Take cons cells for example. Just my $0.02.
neo88

Quote: Original post by neo88
I disagree. I think that any of the run-of-the-mill Lisp compilers work jsut fine. Sure, they implement some things differently, but that doesn't mean they don't conform to the standerds, because they do, only the standerd does not specify the things that are implemented differently. Take cons cells for example. Just my $0.02.
neo88

I've seen several threads on newsgroups stating quite the opposite. People have run tests where they wrote whole programs using only standard Common Lisp features and then tried to port it. I don't think I've seen a single trial of such tests where the code didn't have to be changed at least SOME to work the same between two compilers, much less the 10-15 different compilers usually tested in such ways. Since Common Lisp is so huge, it is understandable that the compiler writers have a difficult time getting everything correct, and it just shows even more IMO that there is a need for a new, smaller, more complete(threads at the very least need to be added - most implementations still aren't even thread safe) standard.

Quote: Original post by Extrarius
I don't know much about scheme, but I know enough that saying Scheme/Lisp is like saying Java/C or C#/C:
They're the same family of language just like Java and C# and C and they share a little of the syntax, but have a LOT of differences.

I was grouping them together because of their similar coding paradigm (Scheme/Lisp vs. C#/Java).

Quote: Original post by falkone
[...]I was grouping them together because of their similar coding paradigm (Scheme/Lisp vs. C#/Java).

From what I've seen of scheme, it is meant to be a functional programming language, while Lisp is only moderately oriented in that direction (and you can still do every other kind with little if any extra work).

Quote: Original post by Extrarius

Quote: Original post by falkone
[...]I was grouping them together because of their similar coding paradigm (Scheme/Lisp vs. C#/Java).

From what I've seen of scheme, it is meant to be a functional programming language, while Lisp is only moderately oriented in that direction (and you can still do every other kind with little if any extra work).

Agreed.