Common Lisp can be used for game development!

http://stevelosh.com/blog/2016/08/lisp-jam-postmortem/
Eat that, imperative shitlords.

CL has had graphical libraries for decades so developing 2D games has been possible for long.
You could embed abcl into java program that uses some game engine for java and do everything in cl with abcl. Abcl is shit compared to kawa scheme and maybe even shittier than clojure if that's even possible.
You could embed ecl into your c or c++ program and ...
I think clozure cl has some kind of easy bridging to objective-c.

So can clojure

https://github.com/oakes/play-clj
https://github.com/oakes/play-cljs

[img]https://sekao.net/me.jpg[/img]

I prefer Scheme.

>>3
But clojure is not lisp.

>>5
yeah it is

[img]https://sekao.net/me.jpg[/img]

Eat that, imperative shitlords.

But Common Lisp is the most imperative of the imperative, the ultimate hyper-mutable turd. Other programming languages don't allow nearly as much runtime mutation of every fucking thing as Common Lisp does. Goddamn it, you can rebind function values at runtime or change class definitions at runtime and the objects get mutated to have new slots - not even C can do that kind of shit. Common Lisp is the epitome of everything imperative and anti-functional, no wonder it was sent to the dustbin and all the practices it promotes are being stamped out with vehemence in every professional programmer community.

>>7
Go fuck your dead dog.

>>8
You mean Common LITHP? Cause that's sure as hell dead and everyone thinks Clojure is a LITHP and fap to its immutability and concurrency primitives while Common LITHP is 6 feet under and useless legacy shit with overpriced snake oil IDEs no one buys anymore.

>>7

the epitome of everything imperative and anti-functional

``Functional programming'' is another scam for deluding the goyim.

>>10
Your mother fell for a scam when she conceived you.

A game developed using Lisp:
https://github.com/saniv/symcraft/blob/master/historic/screenshots/wc2-4.png
https://github.com/saniv/ancient-symta-versions/tree/master/v0.2/symta
https://github.com/saniv/symcraft

>>12
Warcraft2 is ancient technology, blizzard abandoned the engine in late 90's. Nobody plays it anymore, the gameplay is too simplistic and predictable.
Have you tried replicating starcraft instead? Starcraft is popular to this day:private servers, BWAPI bots, mapmaking, even B.net has 20-30K players online(despite all SC2 shilling).

>>13

Starcraft uses Warcraft 2 engine, with main difference being pathfinding optimizations.

>>14
Maybe some old code, but Starcraft was rewritten in C++ and heavily invested to:
https://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/tough-times-on-the-road-to-starcraft
http://kotaku.com/5942128/starcraft-was-once-a-busted-pile-of-crap

>>15

starcraft-was-once-a-busted-pile-of-crap

Sounds like something written in Common Lithp.

>>16
It was written in Cee. 1990's Watcom Cee Compiler.

>>15

Starcraft offers the same discrete cell 2d playfield, the only real difference is the number of units players control, therefore the need to optimize pathfinding, leading to the removal of terra-forming. Warcraft 2 allowed modifying terrain on fly, while in Starcraft that will break precomputed pathfinding nodes. IIRC, Warcraft 2 also had precomputed pathfinder hints, but they were slowly updated on fly each game cycle.

each game cycle

Thats why it felt so sluggish and unresponsive.
Cossacks can have 8K units at once.
http://cossacks.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=1,334,1560,all

>>19
But Starcraft made a hell of a lot more money than Cossacks. Therefore, its engine is better.

Check dubs

C
H
E
C
K

E
M

Why is this an accomplishment that you need to report it here? Isn't Common Lisp a Turing complete language?

>>23
Turing completeness isn't enough for a language to be useful for game development. Brainf*ck is Turing complete, but you wouldn't want to use it for game development. It basically has no ability to interface with 2D or 3D graphics library (unless you create some custom solution where the library interprets byte-stream output at runtime), and even making text-based games like Rogue or Super Star Trek would be a nightmare.

And Lisp isn't what people think of as a gamedev language either (though it's far better than brainf*ck). Because it has a REPL, people assume it's exclusively an interpreted language, and therefore slow. And while many implementations do feature the ability to compile into machine code, it's too abstract to match the speed of asm or C/C++ (which have traditionally been the only suitable options for real-time game engines).

>>24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp

>>23

it's too abstract

No, it's too unityped to have good performance. You can't have performance when you have to check type tags of everything at runtime.

>>26
Type checks are very fast(literally x&tag), its the garbage collection latency that ruins lisp.

>>27
Now imagine checking the type of every element in a 100k x 100k array of floats.
Also Lisp has to either box everything together with its type tag, or shave bits off of numeric types, decreasing their allowed interval severely.
Dynamic typing is shit and can never be performant.

using floating point variables

There's your mistake.