Hacker Read

abstractbill · 2007-04-13 16:41:49

Seconded. Just be aware that its implementation of equalp for strings is dog-slow (compared to clisp at least).

13415 | karma 657 | avg karma 1.14 · | 2019-09-23 21:17:18+00:00

It's as easy as Python and as fast as C. That was my take when I looked at it and bought the book last year.

hwayne | karma 2562 | avg karma 4.61 · | 2017-10-02 16:49:10

Have you tried it? It's usually pretty good for Python.

s3graham | karma 1712 | avg karma 2.95 · | 2009-05-30 23:57:07+00:00

I use it frequently and I like the output it creates. I sure as hell like python's better than C#'s (== none at all and people doing all kinds of crazy broken crap inlined into Main(string[] args).

I've never managed to use optparse without the docs open though. I'm not sure that's a defect, but it seems like room for improvement.

Can someone (zed?) point at a library in any other language that's better?

reply

dvfjsdhgfv | karma 6493 | avg karma 1.85 · | 2018-08-08 09:38:59+00:00

More or less - easy and intuitive like Python (or better), fast almost like C.

ViViDboarder | karma 1893 | avg karma 2.16 · | 2022-08-28 11:47:04

I think HCL is very nice. Easy to read and write, has clear types, has basic functions (arithmetic, string manipulation, etc) with the ability to extend with custom functions as well. It can also be easily converted to JSON, which is a pretty cool way of adapting for machine manipulation.

aranchelk | karma 1194 | avg karma 3.77 · | 2022-06-18 18:45:56

Haskell and PureScript are the ones I’ve used.

iso8859-1 | karma 1477 | avg karma 1.78 · | 2015-05-08 12:32:44+00:00

One that doesn't try to load dynamic objects on runtime like glibc does, if you use certain functions.

friedturkey | karma 687 | avg karma 6.48 · | 2022-02-20 06:49:56

It has all the power of something like Python, but is much faster and with far less cruft and basically no confusing elements.

You’re given a small set of tools and it’s incredibly easy to build off them.

reply

eeZah7Ux | karma 2038 | avg karma 0.8 · | 2021-02-01 14:41:47+00:00

Much better! This is in C and Python and under AGPL.

janjan | karma 91 | avg karma 3.79 · | 2011-08-22 12:08:55

Thanks, that looks very interesting! I wish I would have used this years ago, but (un)fortunately I switched over to Python (and some C for extensions).

geocar | karma 5761 | avg karma 2.88 · | 2014-09-25 20:42:30

I'd also recommend KDB+

I find my code very clear and readable in it.

reply

wetmelon | karma 1 | avg karma 1.0 · | 2020-09-21 03:11:10+00:00

Personally I like Tup, which also does this, and has no dependencies, but it has some quirks.

auslegung | karma 1308 | avg karma 1.74 · | 2019-01-11 14:18:53+00:00

I wanted to recommend Haskell/Elm, which is what we use at ITProTV, but felt it wasn’t popular enough to recommend per the OP’s preferences, so thank you for recommending it :)

vmchale | karma 849 | avg karma 1.16 · | 2020-01-21 09:33:15

How does it compare to Futhark/J? I'm especially curious how it compares to calling Futhark from Python. Are there special data structures?

eutectic | karma 832 | avg karma 1.99 · | 2024-04-28 00:36:16

I like einsum, it's concise and self-explanatory. Way better than multiple lines of nested for loops would be.

Luyt | karma 3269 | avg karma 2.82 · | 2019-05-04 14:06:39+00:00

Have you tried Cython already? That's almost Python and much faster.

geoka9 | karma 3349 | avg karma 3.56 · | 2017-01-13 12:51:38

Have you tried ratpoison? Same author, but in C, so it's fast.

djhaskin987 | karma 1604 | avg karma 4.03 · | 2022-09-05 23:52:29

The only other equal I've seen to scribble around is Python's Sphinx. I use Sphinx for all my projects no matter what language they're in because it's so good.

hkolek | karma 197 | avg karma 2.32 · | 2011-11-30 16:54:46+00:00

That one is really great imo, because it doesn't use any utility libraries whatsoever which makes it much easier to understand if you're new to this stuff and have no clue what's what.