Common Lisp fan here, but not a data scientist. Why do you say to avoid CL for data analysis? Not trying to flame or anything, just curious about your experience with it.

▲

iLemming 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't have great experience of using CL for analyzing data, because of "why?", if I already have another Lisp that is simply amazing for data.

Clojure, unlike lists in traditional Lisps, based on composable, unified abstraction for its collections, they are lazy by default and literal readable data structures, they are far easier to introspect and not so "opaque" compared to anything - not just CL (even Python), they are superb for dealing with heterogeneous data. Clojure's cohesive data manipulation story is where Common Lisp's lists-and-symbols just can't match.

	▲	dreamcompiler 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Homework assignments notwithstanding, very few serious Common Lisp programs use lists and symbols as their primary data structures. This has been true since around 1985. Common Lisp has O[1] vectors, multidimensional arrays, hash-tables (what Clojure calls maps), structs, and objects. It has set operations too but it doesn't enforce membership uniqueness. It also has bignums, several sizes of floats, infinite-precision rationals, and complex numbers. Not to mention characters, strings, and logical operations on individual bits. The main difference from Clojure is that CL data structures are not immutable. But that's an orthogonal issue to the suggestion that CL doesn't contain a rich library of modern data structures. Common Lisp has never been limited to "List Processing."