Hacker News Reader

Comment by alnayyir | Hacker News Reader

Do we need another fractional Lisp that reuses Python/Ruby/IO syntax?

Just give me the power of Lisp and more in a new and interesting way and we'll discuss implementation performance later.

Oh look, operator precedence. Yet another thing prefix notation eliminates me from having to memorize or otherwise puzzle out.

Why do we have to keep doing this over...and over...and over...

Make an LLVM Lisp with S and M expressions and concurrency primitives and you have an interested customer, otherwise, I'll keep hacking in Clojure.

I love seeing new things but I don't understand why people keep making these kinds of languages over and over, we've been doing it since Perl, Python, and Ruby came out.

View on HN

"I don't understand why people keep making these kinds of languages over and over" -- TJ makes lots of things, from web frameworks to template engines and css DSLs, to see him make a language makes me think: "ooh, TJ made a new toy!"

As far as does the world need it? That is a hard question to answer. Will it achieve mass adoption? My money is on no -- another question is: How long will TJ keep at it?

yeah, I'm really expecting it to be widely adopted, it's just a fun project to hack on in spare time and share some thoughts.

Sweet! I love seeing your thoughts come to fruition in the language design, and how you compare your syntax and semantic choices to ruby and js. Congrats!

Missing a "not"?

haha yikes, yeah my bad, not expecting..

Because it's fun :)

Nothing is set in stone, it's just a playground for now.

Let language tinkerers keep tinkering, the slow convergence toward Lisp is continuing. Hopefully by the time the convergence is complete it will have brought with it the niceties of its successors: a single standard library, a de facto package manager, and other things that have sharded the various Lisp communities.

People keep playing with the syntax because there are still low hanging fruit to pick when it comes to syntax improvements. This one seems really nice to me - I really like : as function keyword and the implications it has.

the problem this seems to be solving is that everyone decides to "discuss implementation performance later", i.e. never.

You're not familiar with Mike Pall I take it?

that's more the exception than the rule. i think it's a good sign that luna put performance first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com