ATS vs Common Lisp
When comparing ATS vs Common Lisp, the Slant community recommends Common Lisp for most people. In the question“What are the best (productivity-enhancing, well-designed, and concise, rather than just popular or time-tested) programming languages?” Common Lisp is ranked 4th while ATS is ranked 49th. The most important reason people chose Common Lisp is:
Almost all aspects of the language are designed with interactive/repl use in mind.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Built-in formal specification
ATS has a theorem-proving type system powerful enough to prove that its functions meet their specifications. This happens at compile time with no performance impact at runtime. This can be used to prove that an ATS program doesn't have bugs commonly found in C++ programs, like "this function never leaks memory" or "this program never attempts to divide by zero" or "this buffer never overflows" or to verify pointer arithmetic, etc.
Pro Free and open-source compiler
The compiler (ATS/Postiats) is GPLv3.
Pro Functional programming
The syntax is ML-like with the usual functional language features like pattern matching and tail-call optimization.
Pro High-performance systems language
ATS works as a low-level systems language. ATS programs have performance and footprint comparable to programs written in C/C++.
Pro Good module system
Similar to Modula-3. This makes ATS a viable choice even for large-scale projects.
Pro Safe concurrency
ATS can prove its concurrent programs have no deadlocks or race conditions.
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 No Windows version
But it does run on Cygwin.