I just saw this, http://hyperreal.org/~est/e7/, about a new dialect of
lisp called e7. I didn't have the chance to test it out yet, but i was
wondering if anyone kept track of the progress or tried it out. I
would be interested in some early "reviews", critics or anything.
DSL
Diogo Lisboa wrote:
> I just saw this, http://hyperreal.org/~est/e7/, about a new dialect of
> lisp called e7. I didn't have the chance to test it out yet, but i was
> wondering if anyone kept track of the progress or tried it out. I
> would be interested in some early "reviews", critics or anything.
Why are the archives for registered users only? Looks like BS to me.
Main criticism: no FAQ, esp. the first question: why did you f*cking
bother? ie, What value is added over Common Lisp? Most Lispy languages
offer FAQs with that answered. I mean, we already have The Perfect
Language. Compiled. Mature. Standardized. Documented. Implementations
everywhere.
I am picturing you knocking on the garage door of an F1 race team with
your Model T outside asking if they are interested.
hth,ken
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"Algebra is the metaphysics of arithmetic." - John Ray
"As long as algebra is taught in school,
there will be prayer in school." - Cokie Roberts
"Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra."
- Fran Lebowitz
"I'm an algebra liar. I figure two good lies make a positive."
- Tim Allen
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Main criticism: no FAQ, esp. the first question: why did you f*cking
> bother? ie, What value is added over Common Lisp?
Not an unreasonable question.
The only part of the docs that actually seemed to be written was
exciting stuff about readline (yay!), which leads me to believe that
they're thinking far more about the implementation than the language.
That plus that they list "written in C++" as a feature, and, well...
-dan
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Main criticism: no FAQ, esp. the first question: why did you f*cking
>> bother? ie, What value is added over Common Lisp?
>
> Not an unreasonable question.
>
> The only part of the docs that actually seemed to be written was
> exciting stuff about readline (yay!), which leads me to believe that
> they're thinking far more about the implementation than the language.
> That plus that they list "written in C++" as a feature, and, well...
One of the great mysteries in life: people implementing dynamic
languages in static languages...
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On May 21, 12:28 am, Diogo Lisboa <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> wondering if anyone kept track of the progress or tried it out. I
> would be interested in some early "reviews", critics or anything.
>From what I can see in the as yet very incomplete documentation, this
looks like an attempt to create a Lisp for Python programmers,
including some Python-inspired syntax, a facility to allow dynamic
access to the python runtime, and a "full suite of Pythonic control
structures".
A Common Lisp implementation targeting the Python VM (like ABCL for
the JVM) would have been less of a waste of resources.
Diogo Lisboa schrieb:
> I just saw this, http://hyperreal.org/~est/e7/, about a new dialect of
> lisp called e7. I didn't have the chance to test it out yet, but i was
On the website: "You may be disappointed if you expect: ease of
configuration, high performance, language stability, or quality
documentation."
He's right.