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 ;) |