[HN Gopher] Common Lisp with stat and plot (stat-Lisp)
___________________________________________________________________
Common Lisp with stat and plot (stat-Lisp)
Author : ngcc_hk
Score : 40 points
Date : 2022-03-23 10:12 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (lisp-stat.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (lisp-stat.dev)
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Not to be confused with XLispStat[1]
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XLispStat
| openfuture wrote:
| One thing to keep in mind is that common lisp is actually a super
| new and exciting language... All the implementations used to be
| proprietary for a long time (but there's been widespread
| acknowledgement of the merits of the language from the very
| beginning).
|
| Now that we've got super awesome FOSS implementations the party
| has gotten started and immediately there are so many crazy cool
| things coming out. I think common lisp is basically a better rust
| for a lot of the things rust is being used for.. Although of
| course rust is way better for many things also. It's not really
| an apples-to-apples comparison but the point is that common lisp
| is quite fast and good for application development (which rust is
| too but often with more complexity than necessary).
|
| Another thing to remember is this rule of thumb where if you want
| to make a neutral prior for how long a technology will be around
| you should basically just look at how long it has already
| existed. Something exists for a week, probably it will be around
| for another week. Something exists for a decade, probably it will
| be around for another decade. Of course this is not a very
| detailed assessment but SICL and CIEL are respectively efforts at
| minimizing the bootstrap and modernizing the final product. There
| will be more of these efforts and eventually lisp will become a
| totally different language (as we approach the energy minimum for
| the vocabulary)... Essentially what I am trying to say is that
| right now; lisp code is the code that I have the most confidence
| in w.r.t. longevity.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I don't have exact dates, but I definitely used cmucl on
| linux/x86 before 2000 (though not much before; 1999 maybe?).
| neutronicus wrote:
| IMO Common Lisp is extremely unlike Rust, which is basically
| (C++)++, and I would not use them for the same things
| gnufx wrote:
| Static for 25+ years, but "super new"?? Of implementations,
| CMUCL even predates Common Lisp, but I don't know when it
| implemented CL. GNU Common Lisp was available GPL'd around the
| time of the standard and, I think Clisp.
| WalterGR wrote:
| "Statistical Analysis with Lisp-Stat"
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| It is more Common Lisp with an extension into my area, even
| though my first degree and jobs are all stat. Thanks for the
| suggestion. Just not how I thinking of it. In fact if you just
| want to do stat, I recommend spss, R, python ... not really
| sure you will start with this and learn the lisp underlying.
| Clips-stat guy moved to develop R for a reason.
|
| Still I think it is lovely they restart this path. Love Common
| Lisp.
| na85 wrote:
| Not sure why OP didn't use TFA's actual title, but oh well.
|
| Lisp-Stat is maybe not as full-featured as its analogues in the
| python ecosystem, but it's still quite good. I recently developed
| an algorithmic trading bot in Common Lisp using statistical
| arbitrage methods and I used lisp-stat quite a bit in the
| development process, and while I enjoyed vega-lite (the plotting
| library that lisp-stat uses) I will say that I despite JSON as a
| format and found exporting to gnuplot scripts more flexible and
| useful.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-24 23:00 UTC)