tnovelli at gmail.com
Sun Oct 29 19:05:39 PST 2006
On 10/29/06, Brian Rice <water at tunes.org> wrote:
> After some server maintenance and subsequent hiccups, the site is
> back online...
Great, now I can commit the next iteration. It might be too
self-deprecating -- although we deserve it. What do you think?
I looked at those links you sent. Markdown looks decent, but Creole
is very close to what I had in mind, so I'm inclined to hop on that
> > Still, Lisp seems like the Right Thing (tm) in the long run. Ideally,
> > I think, we'd design a cleaner dialect of Lisp for use as an
> > all-purpose intermediate language, and implement CL, Slate, Python,
> > ECMAscript, etc. on top of that. I prefer Python's syntax. The nice
> > thing about CL is, it's mature. Does all this make sense?
> Python's syntax has been done as a "skin" on lisp in various packages
> and I can imagine a future where code is not textual but is
> interacted with in a "MVC" style fashion (higher-order tree-
> transformation with massively-customizable editing framework, blah
> blah blah). So I'd basically say that whatever syntax trees were
> edited would be most directly renderable as Lisp, rather than being
> Lisp itself. I'm assuming here that you're proposing this text for
> website introductory copy, because doing all of this is a Lot Of Work.
And these syntax trees could be compiled by Lisp, metaprogrammed as
Lisp, etc. In other words we'd use Lisp semantics. I'll try to work
that into the new web pages.
Let me retract what I said about CL being more mature than Python, now
that I've tried installing a few packages... It's definitely something
I want to learn, but I've got my hands full already. If worst comes
to worst, I'll just hack together some Python scripts. For now I'll
focus on the content.. there's plenty of organizing, writing and
rewriting to do.
More information about the TUNES