| pmurias |
rindolf: what is Park/Spark? |
| rindolf |
pmurias: http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/projects/Park-Lisp/ |
| rindolf |
pmurias: it's still incomplete. |
| rindolf |
And I haven't updated it. |
| pmurias |
rindolf: if you like lisp/perl6 projects you might consider helping with a common lisp elf backend |
| rindolf |
pmurias: Common Lisp. |
| rindolf |
pmurias: thing is I think both CL and Scheme suck. |
| rindolf |
I like Lisp as a concept. |
| rindolf |
Arc is nice, but has too many implementation problems. |
| rindolf |
And missing features. |
| vixey |
Arc is not nice |
| rindolf |
I want to give a presentation to the Perl Mongers about "Foreign Languages: Lisp" |
| rindolf |
vixey: I like it. |
| rindolf |
Though I hate that "(not)" has become "(no)" |
| rindolf |
it's so non-English. |
| vixey |
it's just TCL with horrible syntax |
| rindolf |
vixey: but it's missing a lot of exciting features. |
| rindolf |
Which PG deemed as unnecessary. |
| rindolf |
Doesn't look like the 100-years language to me. |
| rindolf |
Which is why - Spark! |
| pmurias |
why not just write an s-expression p6 dialect? |
| rindolf |
pmurias: could be. |
| rindolf |
pmurias: it's another approach. |
| rindolf |
But some things make sense in Lisp and not in p6. |
| rindolf |
For example, Perl does not like to use + for string or list concat. |
| rindolf |
While Python does and it seems to be OK in Arc too. |
| rindolf |
And in CL you have (concatenate) (yuck!). |
| pbuetow |
(((hehe))) |
| pmurias |
+ for strings sucks |
| Auzon |
seconded. |
| vixey |
rindolf: If you don't like CONCATENATE you can just rename it |
| rindolf |
vixey: yeah. |
| rindolf |
vixey: but I'd rather not rename concatenate because then people won't understand my code. |
| rindolf |
vixey: as TimToady said people hate abstractions. |
| vixey |
yes they will rindolf |
| rindolf |
They want things to work out of the box. |
| vixey |
A program is many many totally newly defined procedures |
| vixey |
just renaming one thing is nothing in the context of a big program |
| rindolf |
vixey: "let's spend 3 days creating a new language, and 1 day implementing the solution with it." |
| TimToady |
if it would take 10 days without the new language, it's worth it |
| rindolf |
TimToady: yeah. |
| rindolf |
TimToady: but this is the CL mentality. |
| vixey |
no it's not |
| rindolf |
Sometimes you can take 1 day to write an API. |
| vixey |
CL is too diverse you cannot generalize like that |
| rindolf |
vixey: I meant a common idiom there. |
| rindolf |
I think I'll /quit and do something productive. |
| rindolf |
Like work on Spark. |
| vixey |
another quote: |
| vixey |
how to write any computer program in two easy stages: |
| vixey |
Design and implement the programming language which would be best for solving the problem. |
| vixey |
Write the program in the language you’ve just implemented. |
| rindolf |
vixey: or just use Perl which is the best for everything. |
| vixey |
heh |
| TimToady |
the second step is obvious--the best language for the job is one that does the job on a null input |
| * pmichaud |
notes that vixey's algorithm is somewhat recursive |
| TimToady |
"All rules of thumb are false, including this one." |
| pmurias |
rindolf: when you feel like writing Common Lisp backends, contact me or mncharity ;) |