Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariVala vs Common Lisp
When comparing Vala vs Common Lisp, the Slant community recommends Common Lisp for most people. In the question“What are the best systems programming languages?” Common Lisp is ranked 12th while Vala is ranked 17th. The most important reason people chose Common Lisp is:
Almost all aspects of the language are designed with interactive/repl use in mind.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Rich GTK Support
Vala developed by Gnome Foundation.
Pro Fast
Underneath there is C. It makes some stuff easier to write than it would be with plain C code.
Pro Easy Syntax
Vala is syntactically similar to C# and includes several features such as: anonymous functions, signals, properties, generics, assisted memory management, exception handling, type inference, and foreach statements
Pro C compatible API (and ABI)
C programs can use libraries written in Vala, and vice versa.
Pro Good documentation
There is Valadoc and most of the libraries have Devhelp packages.
Pro Well-integrated with C language
Vala itself is compiled to C, therefore it can use the vast ecosystem of C language, with least effort.
Pro Stable ABI
You can write a library with ABI stability.
Pro A general purpose language
Vala is compiled to C and only requires GLib - or even nothing (posix profile)
Pro Carefully designed for interactive use
Almost all aspects of the language are designed with interactive/repl use in mind.
Pro Very Powerful REPL with SLIME
SLIME (Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs).
Pro Condition/restart system
It is easy to recover from errors. Error resolution can be determined by the user at the REPL.
Pro Image based runtime
The state of the program may be saved and reloaded as an image, supporting safer modification of the running program. New code may be compiled into the image as the program runs, while late binding ensures that symbol redefinitions take effect throughout the program.
Pro Almost as fast as, or faster than, C
Some compilers such as SBCL can be faster than C or other low-level languages, and most compilers can generate fast native code.
Cons
Con Very few resources allocated to the language
Only a single person is working on Vala full time. Gnome Foundation isn't allocating sufficient resources to properly maintain Vala.
Con A very naïve approach to the real problem
Vala just adds more complexity to the game. No real benefits in using a 'programming language emulator' for UI code, you may think it adds to productivity but it's just a way to make the problem last longer, reinventing the wheel everytime and worse.
Con Very limited adoption
Vala isn't used in areas other than GTK development, and no major business has adopted the language.
Con Not a general purpose language
Can't use Vala in multiple software development areas.
Con Very limited tooling
Though using Gnome Builder, you can debug it easily.
Con Heavy reliance on GObject
Heavy reliance on GObject types, although Vala can be used without GObject. (posix profile)
Con Not well documented
It already has tons of documentation, even a book about Vala.https://leanpub.com/vala https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/Vala/Documentation
Con No stable version
No stable version of Vala released for over a decade so far. Means that Vala isn't production ready.
