[HN Gopher] Show HN: Farolero - Common Lisp style-conditions and... ___________________________________________________________________ Show HN: Farolero - Common Lisp style-conditions and restarts for Clojure Author : suskeyhose Score : 107 points Date : 2021-04-18 13:34 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | suskeyhose wrote: | farolero is a full, thread-safe implementation of Common Lisp | conditions and restarts for Clojure. Most of the other | implementations are incomplete or fail in cases related to | threading, or don't include a debugger. This implementation is | full. | | I have plans to make an nrepl-integrated system debugger for | integration with cider, although the existing debugger is quite | good already. | | This library has just hit RC3, which includes a test suite | adapted from ANSI-TEST, and is ready for release after a tiny bit | more testing. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | This is pretty cool, conditions/restarts were one thing I | always missed in my repl-driven workflow when writing Clojure. | | Now someone just needs to implement a reliable way to | add/reload dependencies without restarting the REPL. | harperlee wrote: | > Now someone just needs to implement a reliable way to | add/reload dependencies without restarting the REPL. | | Alex Miller is working on this as an official clojure | functionality, see the add-lib, add-lib2 and add-lib3 | branches of deps.alpha. It's just brewing very slowly... | hopefully with Tonsky now on board they are able to speed up | this and other topics! | nightwolf wrote: | Do you mean Fogus, or have I missed something? | harperlee wrote: | Yeah sorry; that would have been interesting, but fogus. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | Yeah, I've seen this work. It's a bit annoying to me | because the boot team basically solved this problem years | ago too, but the Clojure core team seems to suffer from NIH | syndrome. | | The other issue, though, is that I think the JVM and a | couple of Clojure's core design decisions are hampering the | "everything is reloadable" workflow you get with Common | Lisp: in CL, I can leave my REPL running for months and | load five or six projects in parallel with no problem. In | Clojure, I've found that I'm continuously restarting the | REPL because things like protocol implementations are hard | to reload cleanly. | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | Also, ASDF makes the concept of a "project" a first class | feature in the language: of the various Clojure tools | around, only boot took this approach. | fookinel wrote: | How well does it play with common java libraries? | phoe-krk wrote: | I'm glad to know that my condition system book is of some really | concrete use; an independent implementation of CL-style | conditions and control flow in Clojure is probably the best | example I can imagine for that. | | Congratulations, and thank you! | blacktriangle wrote: | Bought your book. It was a huge help to me understanding the CL | condition system. Thank you very much for taking the risk to | write a much-needed treatment on a niche topic of a niche | language. | ghufran_syed wrote: | Which book are we talking about? could you post a link or a | title please? | the-smug-one wrote: | The Common Lisp Condition System: Beyond Exception Handling | with Control Flow Mechanisms phoe is the author. | phoe-krk wrote: | the-smug-one already posted the title. It was discussed on | HN twice: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23843525 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24867548 | sglisp wrote: | I bought and read your book. Unfortunately it is long winded | and poorly written, so I advise others not to spend time and | _money_ on it. Bit disappointed that it gets misleading | treatment online, I was expecting a book by an expert, but I | guess lesson learnt when making judgement based on what is | written online - those who post more aren't necessarily any | expert in the field! | dang wrote: | Hey, could you please review the site guidelines and stick to | the rules when posting to HN? Your comments here are breaking | them badly--for example, the guidelines that say " _Be kind,_ | " and " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of | other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us | something._" | | That doesn't mean that you can't be critical! But critical | comments need more care--first, to make sure that they're | informative, and second to make sure they're free of swipes | and putdowns. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | I dare say that this is particularly important in Lisp- | related threads. A constant caution to those of us here who | love Lisp and related topics is what happened to c.l.l., a | community that was once one of the richest in computing and | then self-immolated because a few people, for whatever | reason, decided to normalize behaving like assholes. So on | HN, on all programming topics and especially on Lisp ones, | people need to treat each other kindly and share information | in a spirit of helping, not putting down. | | (Also--please don't create accounts to break the site | guidelines with.) | cmpmark wrote: | I'd say that comp.lang.lisp went into irrelevance at the | same time Usenet did. | | I don't think the tone there repelled many people; there | must be other reasons, like Python (unfortunately!) | replacing Lisp in several domains. | | Most newsgroups had a moderated sibling, which was more | polite but universally less popular than the main | unmoderated one. If the repelled persons had wanted polite | discussion, they could have gone there, but they didn't. | phoe-krk wrote: | Sure, please tell me more about it; I'd like to know what in | particular can be fixed in it to make it better. I already | know that you're dissatisfied with it and you're up for | getting personal at me, but I think that I'll need more | details to ensure that whatever is wrong with this edition of | the book doesn't get replicated in the future. | sglisp wrote: | You need to write it a few more times so it is clearer. | Also I'm sorry if this is harsh, but technical books should | be written by experts who have taught the subject for many | years and understand the best way to communicate the | subject matter. Otherwise better leave it as a series of | blog posts. | phoe-krk wrote: | I don't understand the first sentence; do you mean | writing it several times in succession and completely | discarding all results but the last one, or more like an | iterative process that actually looks back at what was | written previously and improves upon that content? | | Also, I don't think I can really make use of the latter | part; it implies that only people who have taught the | subject for years are qualified for writing technical | books, which - given that I am not a teacher and likely | won't be one - gives the resulting vibe of "just give up" | without any possible improvements. I can't make any use | of that in order to improve my current or future writing. | sglisp wrote: | Take a few weeks break between each write, you will start | to see areas that are clear and those that you will not | like. Connect the flow of paragraphs and chapters to each | other - hard to see all this when you first write it | down; but after taking a reasonable break - you will | start to see which areas to change. | | I get your point on not being a teacher, but I would | recommend doing it as blog posts then and not a book, a | book implies something much more. Or maybe I'm just old | school and not for the current times. After all, there | are countless of ebooks of questionable quality on | various programming topics. | phoe-krk wrote: | OK - thanks, I'll keep that in mind for my future writing | and for the second edition of TCLCS (if it happens). The | first edition was written pretty fast (a total of six | months?) and it did not have enough time to have enough | of the "few weeks breaks" that you mentioned, so I can | understand that it suffers from lack of text maturity. | | I'm curious about "a book implies something much more" | though. I have seen multiple series of blog posts that | then grew to the point where they were actually published | as books. What's the difference between the two when one | wants to tell them apart via their content? What's this | implication that you mention? | sglisp wrote: | At least for _me_ , those blog posts that become a book | are not of very high quality. Very bad actually. | | For example, books (at least used to) have editors, and | reviews by multiple specialists in the field. I can't | think of distinct step between personal writing and | something publishing, so I cannot add meaningful comments | to your question. | amanaplanacanal wrote: | Perhaps you could link to one of your books for an | example of how it should be done? | phoe-krk wrote: | I've had the book reviewed and edited by several people | (mentioned in the front matter), and you're not the first | person to complain about the long-winded style. This | likely means that we collectively screwed up with regard | to the English layer of the book. | | Thanks for the feedback; I'll let my reviewers/editors | know, get this fixed in the second edition, avoid doing | that in my future writing. | guenthert wrote: | Not many books pass this high a bar. CL is special, but | many technologies won't remain relevant for many years -- | how would we ever see books about those? | sumnole wrote: | You're giving this troll way too much food. | phoe-krk wrote: | You know, on the other hand, you're calling this person a | troll. | | I prefer to listen to what they have to say, especially | if it means that I have a chance to make my future | writing better in some way. (And I already have one | concrete issue that I've remembered and passed on to the | people that I've been working on my book with, so it's a | net win for me.) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-18 23:01 UTC)