[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)