From: Alexander Schofield
Subject: librep opinions?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3C79D532.2B199077@mailhost.njit.edu>
I ran across a dialect called librep, targeted mainly for embedding and
the scripter of the sawfish WM a while back and I just started playing
around with it.  What I've seen I like.  It has macros like CL not
Scheme, and it seems to blend features very nicely, plus, it's quite
small.  It had some really neat features like built-in
regular-expressions (I know they exist in several incarnations for CL),
and great process control features.  It also allows for blending scopes
rather nicely with setq, defun, and define.  It has a great reader (like
CLISPs), and bindings for MySQL and ORBit, all in one neat, compact
little package.

Anyone have any experience with it here?  Any pet-hates, interesting
features?

-- 
Alexander Schofield

From: Alexander Schofield
Subject: Re: librep opinions?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3C79D66F.6685A60E@mailhost.njit.edu>
that's at:
http://librep.sourceforge.net/

Alexander Schofield wrote:
> 
> I ran across a dialect called librep, targeted mainly for embedding and
> the scripter of the sawfish WM a while back and I just started playing
> around with it.  What I've seen I like.  It has macros like CL not
> Scheme, and it seems to blend features very nicely, plus, it's quite
> small.  It had some really neat features like built-in
> regular-expressions (I know they exist in several incarnations for CL),
> and great process control features.  It also allows for blending scopes
> rather nicely with setq, defun, and define.  It has a great reader (like
> CLISPs), and bindings for MySQL and ORBit, all in one neat, compact
> little package.
> 
> Anyone have any experience with it here?  Any pet-hates, interesting
> features?
> 
> --
> Alexander Schofield

-- 
Alexander Schofield
From: Daniel Pittman
Subject: Re: librep opinions?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87it8mukr7.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net>
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Alexander Schofield wrote:
> I ran across a dialect called librep, targeted mainly for embedding
> and the scripter of the sawfish WM a while back and I just started
> playing around with it. What I've seen I like. It has macros like CL
> not Scheme, and it seems to blend features very nicely, plus, it's
> quite small. It had some really neat features like built-in
> regular-expressions (I know they exist in several incarnations for
> CL), and great process control features. It also allows for blending
> scopes rather nicely with setq, defun, and define. It has a great
> reader (like CLISPs), and bindings for MySQL and ORBit, all in one
> neat, compact little package.
> 
> Anyone have any experience with it here?  Any pet-hates, interesting
> features?

Having done a non-trivial quantity of work with it, trying to get
Sawfish to implement various features I wanted, as well as looking at it
as a general lisp-like scripting language, I found it to be generally
unpleasant to work with.

It's a dynamically scoped language, like Emacs Lisp, by default. The
lexical scoping is modeled directly on the scheme 'define' mechanism,
with it's irritating syntax.[1]

It's got a terribly small standard library of features, comparable to a
scheme, not a Common Lisp.


Overall I found it to feel like something that couldn't decide between
Emacs Lisp and Scheme, and it gave me a real dread that one day an Emacs
will adopt a scheme as it's scripting language. ;)

I wouldn't recommend it myself but your mileage may vary. My experiences
were mostly in the context of Sawfish and were unsuccessful, possibly as
a result of limitations of that environment and not the language.[2]

        Daniel


Footnotes: 
[1]  To me, of course.

[2]  I don't think this is the case but due warning and all that...

-- 
The masters of technology will have to be lighthearted and intelligent.
The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.
        -- Marshall McLuhan