guenthert 12 days ago

How does it compare (feature-wise, performance, stability) with e.g. hunchentoot (which clearly wins the naming contest)?

  • jinwoo68 12 days ago

    I think this runs only with Allegro Common Lisp, a commercial implementation.

    • agambrahma 12 days ago

      Not really, you can run this under SBCL too.

      • guenthert 12 days ago

        I need another hint. The sources seem to depend on Allegro specifics, e.g. the :excl package (with the enlightening description "General extensions to Common Lisp").

        • mikelevins 12 days ago

          You can load :aserve from qucklisp to get a portable fork of AllegroServe that works with sbcl (or at least it appears to at first glance on my copy of SBCL 2.2.6).

          The README distributed with the library offers a little guidance to getting started.

        • sanxiyn 12 days ago

          Yes, AllegroServe is Allegro specific, but there is Portable AllegroServe:

          It's the same situation as OpenSSH. OpenSSH only runs on OpenBSD, and Portable OpenSSH is maintained separately.

          • ur-whale 12 days ago

            Five message into the comments and the discussion devolves into compatibility issues between various versions of common lisp.

            Welcome to CL hell.

            • nerdponx 11 days ago

              But the conclusion is "yes, there is a portable version", which is pretty amazing considering how many implementations there are!

            • smegsicle 11 days ago

              portable common lisp hasn't changed since 1994

  • zdav24 12 days ago

    I'd also be interested in a feature comparison against Swish (, but I'm not actually familiar enough with either to make the comparison myself.

    • nerdponx 11 days ago

      Seems like an unrelated domain; AllegroServe is a web server, Swish looks like a lower-level Erlang-like framework for writing concurrent, fault-tolerant programs. Swish looks very interesting though!

      I'd be interested in comparisons with Clack, though, the "other" Common Lisp web framework.

remexre 12 days ago

> We've recently added these features:

> [...]

> - Security up through TLS 1.0 (SSL 3.1).

uhhhhhhhh, isn't this removed from Firefox for having security holes fixed in later versions of the TLS spec?

  • fiddlerwoaroof 12 days ago

    That line is about twelve years old, per git blame. Typically, I’d use a reverse proxy to handle HTTPS anyways.

    • nerdponx 11 days ago

      I would almost prefer a web framework that doesn't even bother trying to handle things like HTTPS and assumes that I'm using a reverse proxy in front of it. Fewer things to maintain.

      • lf-non 11 days ago

        Is this generally true for compiled languages ?

        I like being able to handle https in a single go binary for small projects that otherwise don't need a load balancer etc.

        • fiddlerwoaroof 11 days ago

          I don't trust random web frameworks to implement HTTPS correctly and there are lots of subtle attacks on cryptography.