>>51309706
>language standard version
Does it mean anything? I'm not programming in lisp, are there language features that are missing?
>inb4 library features
>inb4 mixing up language standard with implementation

>>51309722
multithreading
network sockets
There is no reason why you should need to use additional libraries for either of that in 2015.

>>51309706
When did the last specification of Turing Machines come out?

>>51309722
I don't know anything about Lisp but 21 years is as old as typical college student. There are still people saying "dis is da best learn it" and then I look at wiki and it says it's abandonware. Trolls?

>>51309752
>There is no reason why you should need to use additional libraries for either of that in 2015.
>additional libraries
>libraries
There is no reason to push additional libraries to the standard.

>>51309769
A language standard not chaning is a feature, not a bug.

>>51309783
>There is no reason to push additional libraries to the standard.
I never said that there should be a certain library to be declared standard. I said that the API should be standardized so that code you write will work on all standards-conforming implementations without requiring additional libraries.

>>51309791
Times have changed a lot since 1994 don't you think? We have multicore processors and internet everywhere now, just to name two major advances.

>>51309722
>>51309783
So who are you working for? Franz? LispWorks?

>>51309795
Then the best they could do is to make standard library extensions separately (separate RFCs). Then implementations could claim that they support the main standard and specific RFC extensions. Still no reason to touch and deprecate the main standard.

>>51309819
What does it have to do with a language specification? If the language is still strong enough that it can still abstract multithreading and networking efficiently then there is no reason to modify it. Then again, libraries are a separate concern.

>>51309841
>no arguments
>better call him a shill
never change /g/

>>51309843
>Then the best they could do is to make standard library extensions separately (separate RFCs).
Then the same shit as with SRFIs will happen.
>Still no reason to touch and deprecate the main standard.
Why even have any standard at all. Just standardize library-loading and FFI and enjoy the show.

>>51309843
>If the language is still strong enough that it can still abstract multithreading and networking efficiently
Is it really "strong" considering nobody seems to be using it and syntax looks like korean moonscript? Define "efficiently"?

>>51309879
>Define "efficiently"?
The abstraction semantically makes sense and can be implemented efficiently (at least not increasing complexity).
>Is it really "strong" considering nobody seems to be using it and syntax looks like korean moonscript?
Well the syntax wouldn't change even if the standard was updated regularly.

There are two types of common lispers left - 40+ oldfags stuck in 80s and some edgy teenagers who think CL is some secret knowledge what will make them better programmers, but all it does is turn them into insufferable pricks. None of these write actual code, so common lisp is basically dead now.

>>51309862
There is a HUGE difference between having a minimal but strict standard and having no standard at all.

What the fuck? Did you even think that through?

>>51309934
>Well the syntax wouldn't change even if the standard was updated regularly.
Sure it does, it always does. How do you add more concepts without changing syntax? Consider lambdas in Java8 for starters.

>>51310024
>Common Lisp standard
>minimal
You're a funny man. You probably even actually believe this.

Why would you use Lisp when Haskell exists?

>>51310025
>How do you add more concepts without changing syntax?
You add libraries.
>lambdas
I thought they were first class citizens in CL

DEPRECATED

Common lisp is pretty well featured language and has no need for constant updates in the standard. The only updates that would make sense is to standardize multithreading and socket api but even those are not mandatory because there are mature libraries that are still actively maintained to handle those tasks.
It's not even block to make a new implementation of the language, development of clasp started 2014?

>>51309841
he works for the masked man

>>51310025
it's a lisp and adding /any/ syntax will and should only come begrudgingly since nearly any functionality can be added within the scope of the (procedure data data ...) syntax

>>51310056
You don't "use" CL. You learn it to become a better programmer.

CL is like a squat, power clean, bench press, etc. if you're an athlete. They don't "do" anything in particular, they won't help you throw a ball better or whatever, they just make you a stronger athlete.

>>51311763
you learn scheme then use common lisp. CL is just as useful and powerful as any other general purpose language

>>51311756
>within the scope of the (procedure data data ...) syntax
the what?

>>51312431
the list syntax. where the first element is a function and the rest are data

>>51312431
He meant s-expressions.