[HN Gopher] A hackable hobby programming language
___________________________________________________________________
A hackable hobby programming language
Author : creative_spirit
Score : 32 points
Date : 2022-06-17 19:17 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (slope.colorfield.space)
(TXT) w3m dump (slope.colorfield.space)
| drdude wrote:
| Why not use Racket then? Can do more and better support and
| tooling.
| voidhorse wrote:
| wow, lots of negativity and criticism in this thread for what is
| explicitly called out as a fun project (that's what hobby means,
| linked in the language description on the front page):
| https://slope.colorfield.space/hobby.html
|
| Creating a programming language, no matter how robust, is not a
| trivial endeavor--I'd rather celebrate the existence of this
| language and its pretty explicit posturing that it's just for fun
| rather than criticize it immediately for its lack of utility.
| creative_spirit wrote:
| A hackable hobby programming language and toolset for having fun
| and making cool things
| wcerfgba wrote:
| Can you tell us a bit about what makes it 'hackable', or maybe
| some cool hacks you can do with it? :)
| garren wrote:
| It's a lisp, so it's eminently hackable - you can do
| everything with it, and simultaneously nothing ;p
|
| I love lisps. Why choose slope over something like racket or
| maybe clojure(script)?
| empressplay wrote:
| It seems like it's halfway between those things and Logo.
|
| So, simpler but with some modern paradigms thrown in to
| make it more 'respectable'...
| capableweb wrote:
| > It's a lisp, so it's eminently hackable
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's missing one vital lisp
| feature for making it actually hackable: macros!
|
| Couldn't find anything about it in the docs and couldn't
| search the source code for it either, via their git webpage
| either.
| dgb23 wrote:
| Meta programming is still "trivial" (for the lack of a
| better word) in a lisp without using macros.
| bitwize wrote:
| Tell me you wrote a Scheme implementation without telling me you
| wrote a Scheme implementation.
| vincent-manis wrote:
| I am not prepared to make fun of this project, as other
| commenters have. It may or may not be a proper Scheme subset
| (it probably isn't). That said, it may have some use, by
| "hobbyists" (whatever that may mean, remember that Linus
| Torvalds originally called Linux a hobby), or even a wider
| audience. It may serve as a gateway drug to Scheme, Racket, and
| Common Lisp.
|
| As for no macros, that does limit its appeal to Schemers,
| Racketeers, and Lispers. That said, while a crude define-macro
| implementation isn't that difficult, once you have an
| interpreter that can be run at compile time, Scheme define-
| syntax macros are quite difficult to implement properly. I can
| understand why they might have been left out.
| [deleted]
| samatman wrote:
| A lexically scoped, dynamically typed, s-expression language,
| with no macros.
|
| Why?
| [deleted]
| phyrex wrote:
| How is this different from any other scheme?
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-17 23:00 UTC)