<dsmith>mark_weaver, Yeah, should work. For now, there are only 4 kinds of .go files. <ArneBab_>I rewrote the hello world server and wanted to share it :) <ArneBab_>it shows nicely that wisp and lisp are equivalent, but that wisp looks much less intimidating to newcomers. <DerGuteMoritz>OTOH it's been 2 or 3 months since the last project of this kind has been announced so it is probably time for another one :-) <ArneBab_>DerGuteMoritz: the other project is readable. We collaborated on both, but there are differences in philosophy: wisp tries to stay really simple while readable tries to make the code more readable at the expense of having more complex rules <ArneBab_>DerGuteMoritz: essentially I decided to write my own intentation-based lisp when readable introduced $, \\\\ and <* *> as syntax. <ArneBab_>DerGuteMoritz: (but the current version of the parser itself is from March 2013) <DerGuteMoritz>ArneBab_: what I mean is that there are dozens of these and every few months a new one pops up <DerGuteMoritz>I think it is a bit pointless and in fact have never seen anyone actually use one of those <ArneBab_>For me it’s something I would like to have, and having it as preprocessor ensures that my code won’t be bound to that syntax: I can always convert it to lisp and keep working there :) <ArneBab_>But I think to take off, it would require lots of infrastructure: editing-modes with syntax highlighting and completion, a real wisp console (readable has that, using guile as backend), etc. <ArneBab_>I don’t know whether I’ll be able to provide those (maybe if I should be stuck alone on an island with only IRC and some scheme books to accomodate me) <nalaginrut>anyway, it could be added into Guile as a front-end <ArneBab_>nalaginrut: though I won’t ask for that, yet. <ArneBab_>nalaginrut: before I do, I want to rewrite the parser in wisp itself. <taylanub>Sweet-expressions had my attention until 1) I discovered paredit, 2) they introduced all that silly $ and <* *> stuff. <taylanub>Since I've gotten comfortable with paredit (just requires a couple hours if not minutes, IMO), I've lost all motivation in any alternative s-expression representation, and think plain sexps are actually *superior* to any other syntax. <ArneBab_>taylanub: the main thing disturbing me with sexps is that they look alien when I’ve not worked with lisp for some time. <taylanub>One exception might be languages where you need lots and lots of details in code for type-annotations, fine-grained memory control, etc. .. I might attempt at some point to make a clean sexp syntax for Rust to see how far one can go. <taylanub>ArneBab_: Hrm, how much/often have you been writing Lisp so far ?.. <ArneBab_>taylanub: paredit felt very strange to me. Good to hear that if I should once have the chance to do bigger work than a few hundred lines of code, paredit will reduce the pain. <ArneBab_>taylanub: I mostly use it to hack my emacs: every few weeks a few hours. <ArneBab_>it keeps me fresh enough that I understand why it looks so alien to newcomers :) <taylanub>I think after reaching a certain level of comfort with s-expressions, your issues will fade away .. maybe try to get into paredit properly. The advantages one gets in the end vastly pay off for the learning curve IMO. <ArneBab_>my problem with that is, that I want to use a language which is accessible to non-developers. <ArneBab_>Even as it is now, I have a hard time showing others my code. <ArneBab_>my goal with wisp was to retain all properties of sexps, but make it possible to just print the code and show it so a non-dev. <ArneBab_>we have many scientists around who only use code as an unloved tool <ArneBab_>for them, python is acceptable. Lisp looks too strange, though. I hope wisp could change that: Get rid of the gut reaction “I can never understand that” <YoungFrog>ArneBab_: wouldn't it help to give a more lightly coloured face to parentheses ? <taylanub>I think a 2-minute explanation could actually be enough to explain how sexps represent code. <ArneBab_>I think not, because that would not have been enough for me 5 years ago. <ArneBab_>I first had to develop a new way of seeing code - essentially of ignoring paretheses most of the time. <YoungFrog>ArneBab_: I'm under the impression that C-u C-M-q (pretty print sexp) + lighter colour = half work done. <ArneBab_>But for example for python they do not need that: They can write it without tool support. (but note my quote on the wisp-page: lisp has a power and simplicity I miss in python) <ArneBab_>so I don’t just want half the work done… <ArneBab_>I’d like to have a language which is easily readable for newcomers and has all the power of lisp underneath. <ArneBab_>besides: If anyone ever tells you that python does not have a compilation phase and a runtime phase: that’s not quite correct if you use decorators defined in an external module… *ArneBab_ believed that python had no phase separation up until this monday <ArneBab_>taylanub, YoungFrog, DerGuteMoritz: Do you know a short, self-contained piece of code, which you perceive as being really well-written scheme? (about 1 to 2 pages of code ~ 100 lines) <ArneBab_>preferably one which works with guile :) <taylanub>Maybe look into Guile's source, for some Real World Quality Code™. :P <ArneBab_>my problem there is that I fear that I can’t really judge the quality of scheme code: I can’t get my python-lenses off :) <ArneBab_>(even worse: I don’t know when I have them on) <ArneBab_>taylanub: do you mean the readme or the actual implementation? <YoungFrog>ArneBab_: I won't answer because I'm not a scheme user. All I know about lisp is in fact emacs lisp. You could ask why I'm here, then... well, probably because of someone advocating guilemacs in #emacs :) <taylanub>I am in fact using Guile Emacs right now. It runs anything normal Emacs runs, so I'm using my usual Emacs configuration, including Circe for IRC. <taylanub>(eval-scheme "(begin (use-modules (ice-9 control)) (let/ec return (return \\"Hello!\\")))") => Hello! <taylanub>I really inserted that Hello! by hitting C-u C-x C-e !! <YoungFrog>does your C-u C-x C-e inserts " => " also ? I usually do that manually <taylanub>(eval-scheme "(let/ec return (return \\" => Hello!\\"))") => Hello! :P <taylanub>(The `use-module' call's effect persisted, it affected the embedded libguile instance running inside Emacs.) <taylanub>Neato .. though I think I'd just advise my `eval-last-sexp'. <ArneBab_>taylanub: what’s the current performance of guile emacs? <ArneBab_>taylanub: then I’ll try to dig a bit into procedural.scm (since the examples seem to require it). It’s 500 lines, though… <taylanub>ArneBab_: I'm using it over remote X11 so far so the display is the biggest bottleneck, and I can't sense any performance difference yet. <taylanub>ArneBab_: procedural.scm only has about 200 lines of "framework" code, and the rest just creates the built-in types via the same facilities user-provided code could; I should actually separate those into different files. <ArneBab_>ah, ok - then I should be able to read it nicely. Thanks! <ArneBab_>taylanub: Guile Emacs then allows you to run elisp and scheme - but with all optimizations of guile? *ArneBab_ did not know that guile emacs is actually a reality nowadays *nalaginrut wrote main-site of Artanis with hyde of Chicken on github, nice try <ArneBab_>nalaginrut: where did you get that font? (is it free?) <brendyn>nalaginrut: would you recommend using artanis for a blog, or hyde :P? <brendyn>i guess comment sections could be useful. dunno though <DerGuteMoritz>I think PLT_Hulk's advice with regards to hackernews comments applies here, too <DerGuteMoritz>so I prefer no dynamic comment section but just a good old "email the author" link <taylanub>Did I ping timeout ? I think Guile Emacs just died somehow. :\\ Might've been the X11 connection though. <ArneBab_>taylanub (tub@p4FD90644.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Remote host closed the connection) <taylanub>ArneBab_: I think it doesn't compile Elisp yet, but uses libguile's data-types, control-flow mechanisms, etc. in the old Elisp interpreter, so it's easy to define an `eval-scheme' subr for example, which evaluates Guile Scheme, and gets a return-value that can just be used from Elisp as-is. <taylanub>Let's see what it does for fancy Scheme types like records .. (eval-scheme "(make-test-rt 42 \\"test\\")") => #<:test-rt foo: 42 bar: "test"> <taylanub>Now let's try putting it into a variable ... <taylanub>OK, I have an SRFI-9 record in an Elisp variable now .. but I wonder what I can do with it other than print. :P <taylanub>I think it should be trivial to allow Scheme procedures to reside in the function-slot of Elisp symbols; then the module system could somehow be used to automatically put many Scheme procedures into many Elisp symbols, and one could easily use Guile modules from Elisp. <taylanub>If my brain isn't fried by the evening, I might try to make a patch for that, at least the scm-procedures-in-elisp-symbol-function-slots part, I imagine it *should* be easy ... <davexunit>the comments thus far are just guile 1.8 vs 2.0 things, though. <davexunit>I think the user aim2free is the same person that posted to the mailing list awhile ago <taylanub>Wasn't that for a specific functionality only ? Generalizing it is surely wrong ? <taylanub>I was about to say "seems like a credible person and not a troll or so" up until: "Now I'm developing the next generation customer driven innovation portal [...]" aww come on. :P <davexunit>I don't want to discount his claims, because I don't have the backgrounnd, but I told him to talk to the guile maintainers about it to get some real answers. <davexunit>since he doesn't understand the VM that came with guile 2.0 <wingo>woohoo, i have some scheme finally compiling to rtl <davexunit>wingo: is that the next step after the new VM? <wingo>the vm is written, this is the compiler <davexunit>I should have typed: is that the next step now that there is a new VM? :) <taylanub>davexunit: Answered em as well, in case you're interested. <davexunit>taylanub: when using the REPL, the interpreter is used, right? <taylanub>davexunit: I think it compiles .. especially if you just (define (foo) ...), I'm pretty sure you get a compiled procedure ? <davexunit>ah, okay. so I guess when does the interpreter actually get used? <davexunit>so how the hell is this guy using it? via eval or something? <taylanub>You can invoke it manually, somehow ... it could also be that I'm totally wrong and it's used in a couple big places, but I doubt that. <davexunit>I'm becoming more convinced that this guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. <taylanub>That's my impression as well, but let's wait for that report I guess. <davexunit>general question: my knowledge of interpreters/compilers is weak. can anyone recommend a good book or something to help me learn? <davexunit>I really like Guile, but I feel like I don't have the background to make a meaningful contribution. <wingo>davexunit: abdul aziz ghuloum (sp?)'s paper, "incremental compiler construction" <davexunit>I gather that making a toy lisp interpreter would be worthwhile. <davexunit>taylanub: btw, you can format reddit comments using markdown <davexunit>the new VM and compiler are for Guile 2.2, yes? <davexunit>you've done some exciting work for us Guile users. <wingo>we'll see, still quite a bit more to do... <taylanub>The new VM mainly gives us a speed boost, is that right ? <wingo>yep, should improve startup time and memory usage as well <wingo>native compilation will be not difficult after this <taylanub>How can I make a Scheme list from a C array of Scheme objects ? <taylanub>Ah, scm_call_n is what I really was looking for. <taylanub>(setf (symbol-function 'test) (eval-scheme "+")) (test 1 2) => 3 <taylanub>Couple lines of code .. is probably unstable though. <davexunit>I don't know what people think of Zed Shaw here. <davexunit>I think you should read SICP and the Guile manual. :) <youlysses>davexunit: Or simply scheme -> sicp -> guile manual. <davexunit>but in general I agree that something targeted directly at Guile would be cool. <youlysses>That being said, I do see value in having a general introductory text, aimed at guile, and for individuals with no intent of becoming master hackers. :^P <youlysses>Name it something so horribly punny, like 10 readers will get it -- like "Guile Learn GNU Good!"... <youlysses>As-in "I'll learn you good", something traditionally heard in the midwest to south of the US -- before getting some-sort of punishment. :^U *youlysses suspects that he's to good at naming things so-punny that they hurt.... <hellekin>that would be a nice project to throw in for the GNU Development Network :] <youlysses>taylanub: It's a saying around here in the midwest to southern areas I've frequented (US). Much-more often than not it's so archaic that it's said in-jest, but it's more-or-less a saying that's in-reference to someone doing something stupid or wrong. Like leaving something out to spoil, and one's mother saying "I'll learn you good, boy!". :^P <youlysses>hellekin: Sounds like a fun text to write, to throw someone into the very basics of programming in-general. <taylanub>Hrm, why does my REPL server spam me with "fport_fill_input: Interrupted system call" :( <taylanub>I think that's been fixed upstream though. <hellekin>youlysses: indeed. I wish I would have that time (and the skills to write the Guile one) <hellekin>I'm sure the FSF could throw in complementary money. Should be proposed... Gotta run. Will read backlog addressed to me ;o) <youlysses>hellekin: It's probably something I could throw together in a years-time, though it'd probably be ideal to have some-sort of application that one could easily script in-order to help nail down a lot of these points. <davexunit>youlysses: sort of like "Learn you a Haskell for great good"? <davexunit>I've been meaning to at least blog about Guile. some small tutorials. it's no book, but it could be useful. <youlysses>I could even do stupid little doodles too. :^) <youlysses>davexunit: Or just, "Guile hard, Or Die Trying". :^) <youlysses>davexunit: We could make the meme reference that like "guile's theme goes with anything" so-too does guile itself. ***fds_ is now known as fds
