Quicklisp
Shares rank 28 of 35 package managers by recommenders
Common Lisp's de facto package manager; people recommend it for library access, though it lacks HTTPS and signature checks.
Common Lisp's de facto package manager; people recommend it for library access, though it lacks HTTPS and signature checks.
14 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 7
- criticize it
- 7
- approval share
- 50%
Recommended in 5 of 13 months
- November 2025: not recommended
- December 2025: recommended
- January 2026: recommended
- February 2026: not recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: recommended
- May 2026: not recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: recommended
- August 2026: recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 7 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, not met.
- 1 recommender for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 5 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
De facto standard for Common Lisp
“Quicklisp is great and I recommend using it along with a brief introduction”
Comment from 11 Dec 2025 in “Common Lisp, ASDF, and Quicklisp: packaging explained” “Quicklisp is great, it's the defacto standard”
Comment from 11 Dec 2025 in “Common Lisp, ASDF, and Quicklisp: packaging explained” “uv is the ‘Quicklisp for Python.’”
Comment from 31 Aug 2026 in “uv: Deduplicate all files in the wheel cache”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
No HTTPS or signature checking
“Quicklisp still doesn't support HTTPS, which is apparently also necessary to do signature check.”
Comment from 11 Dec 2025 in “Common Lisp, ASDF, and Quicklisp: packaging explained” “also didn’t support https and doesn’t do any signature checking”
Comment from 11 Dec 2025 in “Common Lisp, ASDF, and Quicklisp: packaging explained” Installation is not easy
“figure out how to install and setup a Lisp implementation and quicklisp”
Comment from 26 Apr 2026 in “Mine, an IDE for Coalton and Common Lisp” “it's not the easiest thing to install”
Comment from 11 Dec 2025 in “Common Lisp, ASDF, and Quicklisp: packaging explained”
Other package managers people recommend
The four most recommended other package managers, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
See all 35 package managers, rankedWhat people said
All 17 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“uv is the ‘Quicklisp for Python.’”
“I'm also not a huge fan of quicklisp, though bundles[0] made it a little more bearable for me.”
“it's too bare bones (quicklisp)”
“very few dependencies (uiop and the like from QuickLisp/Ultralisp)”
“typing quicklisp:xxxx in every repl session you open is not”
“the last CLX library it's much faster even on shitty computers”
“figure out how to install and setup a Lisp implementation and quicklisp”
“Of Lem with SBCL+Quicklisp:”
“instead of QuickLisp, because I really see the size of my deptree this way”
“the availability of Quicklisp compensates for the relatively smaller standard library”
“definitely an improvement on mere ASDF/QL”
“Quicklisp still doesn't support HTTPS, which is apparently also necessary to do signature check.”
“it's not the easiest thing to install”
“Quicklisp is great and I recommend using it along with a brief introduction”
“also didn’t support https and doesn’t do any signature checking”
“Quicklisp is great, it's the defacto standard”
“which is great as far as it goes”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.