Repackaging Lisp

From: Adam Warner
Subject: Repackaging Lisp
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:21:23 +0000
Message-ID: <pan.2003.01.14.13.21.14.889590@consulting.net.nz>

http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid26_gci873910,00.html
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/03/01/13/2318241.shtml

and

http://www.waterlang.org/

Water's syntax should be good for a chuckle.

Regards,
Adam

Re: Repackaging Lisp Espen Vestre
Re: Repackaging Lisp Adam Warner
- Re: Repackaging Lisp Larry Clapp

From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: Repackaging Lisp
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:16:12 +0000
Message-ID: <kwfzrvvmtv.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>

"Adam Warner" <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:

> http://www.waterlang.org/

Ouch. My first thought was "what a tasteless joke". But then I saw
that Amazon actually sells the book. Sigh.
-- 
  (espen)

From: Adam Warner
Subject: Re: Repackaging Lisp
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:38:21 +0000
Message-ID: <pan.2003.01.14.13.38.19.876262@consulting.net.nz>

> http://www.waterlang.org/
> 
> Water's syntax should be good for a chuckle.

Remember folks, "Water has the power of Lisp, and the ease of use of
Basic.": http://waterlang.org/overview.html

<not true/>

And some other gems:
http://waterlang.org/doc/tutorial_fast_intro.html

(/ (+ 5 7) 3)  ==>  5.<plus 7/>.<divided_by 3/>

#\W            ==>  <char "W"/>

Regards,
Adam

From: Larry Clapp
Subject: Re: Repackaging Lisp
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:00:02 +0000
Message-ID: <il810b.tra.ln@127.0.0.1>

In article <······························@consulting.net.nz>, Adam Warner wrote:
>> http://www.waterlang.org/
>> 
>> Water's syntax should be good for a chuckle.
> 
> Remember folks, "Water has the power of Lisp, and the ease of use of
> Basic.": http://waterlang.org/overview.html
> 
><not true/>
> 
> And some other gems:
> http://waterlang.org/doc/tutorial_fast_intro.html
> 
> (/ (+ 5 7) 3)  ==>  5.<plus 7/>.<divided_by 3/>
> 
> #\W            ==>  <char "W"/>

And from the introduction to the book:

    The designers of Water believe that working with XML should be as
    smooth and transparent as working with the native data and
    functions of a language.  This isn?t possible unless you use a
    programming language that is native to XML. If XML is used to
    represent general-purpose data, then a general-purpose language is
    required to manipulate this data.

So ... programs == data.  Ring any bells?  :)

I bet they write Lisp under the covers, and have a translator.  I'd do
it that way, anyway.  :)