|
|
|
|
|
|
by flavio81
1967 days ago
|
|
|
> Clojure uses Leiningen which runs on top of Maven to automatically retrieve libraries, it works very well. In the same way, Common Lisp uses Quicklisp, which runs on top of ASDF to automatically retrieve and compile libraries. It works very well. |
|
|
One difference is that Quicklisp + ASDF often needs to be set up manually which can be a little bit more complicated (it is, however, contained in Debian as a package, for example).
Leiningen and Maven relay on version numbers for dependencies.
My understanding is that Quicklisp in practice uses a "rolling release" model similar to Arch Linux - you get a current distribution, where all packages are at their newest version, and if needed, one can also roll back to earlier versions of the whole distribution. That this works with elegance is related to one aspect of Common Lisp culture which is very, very different from, say, Python or Go: Common Lisp puts a lot of importance on backward compatibility and stable APIs, it is possibly the most backward-compatible of all dynamic languages.
Further, while Leiningen is a de facto standard which makes working with Clojure libraries essentially frictionles, Quicklist is just one modern way of multiple ways to include Common Lisp libraries.
This difference is owed to the trait that Common Lisp is much more an open system (which I consider a good thing), while Clojure is more uniform and "managed".