←back to thread

Web Embeddable Common Lisp

(turtleware.eu)
138 points todsacerdoti | 4 comments | 25 Jun 25 15:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.037s | source
Show context
bevr1337 ◴[25 Jun 25 19:09 UTC] No.44380860[source]▶
Why was LISP not one of the first languages able to compile to WASM? I've been curious ever since the awesome WASM project started tracking different projects. They use emojis for progress and LISP has been a hatching egg.
replies(2): >>44381096 #>>44381862 #
dmkolobov ◴[25 Jun 25 21:09 UTC] No.44381862[source]▶
If I had to guess:

1. lack of native GC, you had to roll your own by providing a runtime.

2. lack of tail-call elimination in V1 of the spec. This essentially forces you to trampoline everything.

replies(1): >>44382157 #
1. stassats ◴[25 Jun 25 21:55 UTC] No.44382157[source]▶
> lack of tail-call elimination

But lisp doesn't need TCO.

replies(2): >>44383319 #>>44384522 #
2. bevr1337 ◴[26 Jun 25 01:08 UTC] No.44383319[source]▶
Whoa, what a surprising fact! I had not considered TCO in LISP was "nice to have." That's a good example where it's easy to hack but hard to make production ready.
3. dreamcompiler ◴[26 Jun 25 05:47 UTC] No.44384522[source]▶
Common Lisp doesn't technically require TCO but Scheme does.

IMHO a Common Lisp without TCO is not a serious tool because I cannot write tail-recursive code with it.

replies(1): >>44387509 #
4. wavemode ◴[26 Jun 25 13:59 UTC] No.44387509[source]▶
Typical programming style in Common Lisp is procedural, not functional.

The CL spec doesn't guarantee tail-call elimination, and most CL implementations don't guarantee it either (it could be on or off depending on the current optimization level). So most people don't bother relying on it.