Help with the following systems is required: CL-BLAPACK, MAXIMA, GSLL, XECTO
| Implementation | Quicklisp | Speed | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARRAY-OPERATIONS | Native | ✓ | Medium |
| AVM | Native, Cuda | ✗ | Medium |
| CLEM | Native | ✓ | Slow |
This article is in response to Emmet Boudreau’s article ‘Should We be Using Lisp for Data-Science’.
Below, unless otherwise stated, lisp refers to Common Lisp; in general, lisp refers to the lisp family of languages, just like the C-family of languages. There are functional lisps like Clojure and Scheme, and there are general purpose lisps such as Common Lisp and Racket.
The primary hurdle to using Lisp for Data Science, I believe, is the non-infix syntax common in mathematics.
If programming is more than just a means of getting things done for you, then Common Lisp is for you!
Table of Contents
| ;; Jump to line 99 | |
| ;; This is incomplete; follow the TODOs and think more to complete | |
| (defpackage :deep-copy | |
| (:use | |
| :adhoc-polymorphic-functions | |
| :cl | |
| :alexandria) | |
| (:local-nicknames (:cm :sandalphon.compiler-macro) | |
| (:mop :closer-mop)) |
Numpy is great, in fact it’s one of the things that pulls people to Python. But can it be better?
Common Lisp is great, in fact it’s one of the things that pulls people to Common Lisp. But can it be better? Indeed Python can’t be better than Common Lisp without it becoming another Lisp. The closest we have is Julia. And while it gets some things right, Julia lacks certain features that limit the goodness of a numerical computing library.
All combined, below I will highlight some of the features that I wish a numerical computing library or ecosystem had. I also want to request the readers for their own inputs about how things can be even better. The goal amidst this is solely to keep things numpy-like. I do not intend to - nor have the background to - make a DSL like April or Petalisp.
While I take some interest in performance and numerical computing, I have m
This article is a response to mfiano’s From Common Lisp to Julia which might also convey some developments happening in Common Lisp. I do not intend to suggest that someone coming from a Matlab, R, or Python background should pickup Common Lisp. Julia is a reasonably good language when compared to what it intends to replace. You should pickup Common Lisp only if you are interested in programming in general, not limited to scientific computing, and envision yourself writing code for the rest of your life. It will expand your mind to what is possible, and that goes beyond the macro system. Along the same lines though, you should also pickup C, Haskell, Forth, and perhaps a few other languages that have some noteworthy things to teach, and that I too have been to lazy to learn.
/I also do not intend to offend anyone. I’m okay with criticizing Common Lisp (I myself have done it below!), but I want t
| (in-package :polymorphic-functions) | |
| (defun parametric-type-run-time-lambda-body (type-car type-cdr type-parameter) | |
| (with-gensyms (object) | |
| (let ((type-pattern (traverse-tree `(,type-car ,@type-cdr) | |
| (lambda (node) | |
| (cond ((eq node type-parameter) | |
| type-parameter) | |
| ((and (symbolp node) | |
| (parametric-type-symbol-p node)) |
| (defun macroexpand-until (predicate form &optional env) | |
| "Calls MACROEXPAND-1 on FORM until it is (FUNCALL PREDICATE FORM) returns non-NIL" | |
| (loop :until (funcall predicate form) | |
| :for expansion := (macroexpand-1 form env) | |
| :do (setq form expansion) | |
| :finally (return form))) | |
| (defun macroexpand-until-car (car form &optional env) | |
| "Calls MACROEXPAND-1 on FORM until it is a list which | |
| starts with the symbol specified by CAR" |
It’s been almost 4 years since my last linux OS upgrade. Last time it was Ubuntu 18.04, this time it is Ubuntu 22.04. Unfortunately, I do a lot of customization which can take plenty of post-installation time. This is one such list made primarily for self-reference later; it’d probably still be incomplete since I’m relying on memory.