This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list for the guile project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
> I'm happy to say that there is now a GPLed next-generation, reflexive, > syntax-independent language: http://pliant.cams.ehess.fr/ > > Would you folks please take a look at this site with an open mind, and > let it influence your actions? I guess I don't see what's more syntax-independent about Pliant than Scheme. The Scheme syntax is almost identicle to a parse tree, the lowest common denominator of syntax. Though Guile hasn't been terribly successful at creating and maintaining alternate syntaxes, I don't think that would be terribly difficult. Alternate *semantics* are quite difficult. Syntax, IMHO, is not the most important aspect of a language. All languages have an internal representation -- a parse tree, Java bytecodes, machine code, strings, or in Scheme's case, lists and symbols (this may not be the case with every Scheme implementation, but they hide that fact). Why is Pliant's internal representation more neutral than Scheme's? And from what I can see from the website, Pliant seems to emphasize efficiency a great deal -- I don't think Guile shares this emphasis, it is meant as a compliment to more efficient languages (like C). Pliant seems to have a quite heavy compiling phase. >From what I can tell, Pliant nearly ignores the all-important issue of debugging, taking its inspiration from the Algol languages which have always had this crazy notion that people can write Correct programs. Of course, other people on this list disagree with me on the importance of debugging... So, while Pliant looks interesting I don't think it is trying to do the same thing as Guile. I do kind of like the Pliant (default) syntax. Schemey semantics with a fairly compact syntax. -- Ian Bicking <email@example.com>