[flagged]
I'm glad someone liked it :-)
> I love his description of Forth as "a weird backwards lisp with no parentheses"
I've been interested in that duality between Forth and Lisp before, but my progression always seems to following this path:
- Since Forth is just Lisp done backwards and without parens, and since it's not hard to write an sexpr parser, I might as well do Lisp to check the arity on function calls.
- But in addition to arity errors, I'd really like the compiler to catch my type errors too.
- And since I've never seen an attractive syntax for Lisp with types, I might as well have a real grammar...
And then I've talked myself out of Forth and Lisp! Oh well.
https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-shape-of-psiber-space-octo...
Not coincidentally, James Gosling designed the NeWS window system and implemented its PostScript interpreter, years before designing and implementing Java. And before that he designed and implemented "MockLisp" in his Unix version of Emacs, which he self effacingly described like: "The primary (some would say only) resemblance between Mock Lisp and any real Lisp is the general syntax of a program, which many feel is Lisp's weakest point."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29954778
James Gosling's Emacs Mocklisp was like FEXPRs on PCP, with support for prompting the user to supply omitted arguments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14312249
DonHopkins on May 10, 2017 | parent | context | favorite | on: Emacs is sexy
Hey at least Elisp wasn't ever as bad as Mock Lisp, the extension language in Gosling (aka UniPress aka Evil Software Hoarder) Emacs.
It had ultra-dynamic lazy scoping: It would defer evaluating the function parameters until they were actually needed by the callee (((or a function it called))), at which time it would evaluate the parameters in the CALLEE's scope.
James Gosling honestly copped to how terrible a language MockLisp was in the 1981 Unix Emacs release notes:
https://archive.org/stream/bitsavers_cmuGosling_4195808/Gosl
12.2. MLisp - Mock Lisp
Unix Emacs contains an interpreter for a language
that in many respects resembles Lisp. The primary
(some would say only) resemblance between Mock Lisp
and any real Lisp is the general syntax of a program,
which many feel is Lisp's weakest point. The
differences include such things as the lack of a
cons function and a rather peculiar method of
passing parameters.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8727085
Comparison of PostScript with Forth and Lisp:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22456471
[...]
PostScript is much higher level than Forth, and a lot more like Lisp than Forth, and has much better data structures than Forth, like polymorphic arrays (that can be used as code), dictionaries (that can be used as objects), strings, floating point numbers, and NeWS "magic dictionaries" that can represent built-in objects like canvases, processes, events, fonts, etc.
Yet Forth doesn't even have dynamically allocated memory, although in a few pages of code you can implement it, but it's not standard and very few Forth libraries use it, and instead use the linear Forth dictionary memory (which is terribly limited and can't be freed without FORGETting everything defined after you allocated it):
https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/forth/alloc.f
PostScript is homoiconic. Like Lisp, PostScript code IS first class PostScript data, and you can pass functions around as first class objects and call them later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity
[...]
There was a language called "V" a while back, different than a more recent language called V. It was basically a Forth where quoting was done with square brackets. This replaced the colon-semi notation for defining words, and it was also nice for nested data structures. This language seems to have fallen off the web though.
You mentioned FExprs. I never looked at Mock Lisp, and it sounds like Gosling doesn't think I should! However, I'm sure you're aware of Kernel. I think of Scheme as the "prettiest programming language I don't want to use", and I think the vau stuff in Kernel makes it even prettier. (But I still don't want to use it.)
For homoiconicity, I've also considered something like Tcl or Rebol/Red. The latter two blur the lines between lexer and parser in a way that I'd like to learn more about.
But really, I always come back to wanting static typing. Both for compile time error checking, and to give the compiler a leg up in runtime performance. Instead of using separate declarations like you see in Typed Racket and some others, I wonder if a Lisp with the addition of one "colon operator" to build typed-pairs would do it. Just one step down the slippery slope of infix syntax sugar. In the context of WebAssembly, something like this:
(import (foo a:i32 b:f64):())
(export (bar x:i64 y:f32):(i32 i32)
(code goes here)
)
I.e. they are correct that it is arcane. What percentage of programmers today do you think have ever seen code written in any Lisp dialect, let alone understand it?
That seems like an easy question, but there a lot of choices which complicate it. I'm sure people have compiled CPython to WebAssembly, but I think you only get the WebAssembly imports they (or Emscripten) have chosen for you. I can't use that as an example of what I was trying to show.
It looks like py2wasm is aiming for a true Python to WASM compiler, rather than compiling an interpreter. However, I don't think it supports user-defined imports/exports yet. There's a recent issue thread about this (https://github.com/wasmerio/py2wasm/issues/5).
> how would it compare with non-wasm javascript?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're just using JavaScript, it just looks like JavaScript.
for the second question the example you gave is equivalent to what in plain html/js?
No. It means you only get what the person who ported CPython or py2wasm gave you. It's not a limitation in WebAssembly, and maybe they have some other (hopefully better) API than the `easy(123)` example I was trying to show.
> for the second question the example you gave is equivalent to what in plain html/js?
If I understand what you're asking, it's just:
<!doctype html><title>plain jane</title>
<script type="module">
function easy(arg) {
const div = document.createElement("div");
div.textContent = "DOM this: " + String(arg);
document.body.appendChild(div);
}
easy(123);
easy(456);
</script>that's what i meant. it's not possible until someone adds the necessary features to the wasm port of the language. makes sense of course, like any feature of a new architecture.
If I understand what you're asking
exactly that, thank you. it is easier to understand the example if there is no doubt as to what is the js part and what is wasm (it also didn't help that the code was not easy to read on a phone)
Flaunting your ignorant anti-intellectualism isn't a good look.
You do know this is 2024, you have Internet access, and you can just look shit up or ask ChatGPT to learn new things, instead of cultivating ignorance and pointlessly criticising programmers trying to raise awareness, share their experiences, and educate themselves and other people.
In case you've been living under a rock and didn't realize it, JavaScript, the topic of this discussion, is essentially a dialect of Lisp, with garbage collection, first class functional closures, polymorphic JSON structures instead of s-expressions, a hell of a lot more like and inspired by Lisp and Scheme than C++, and LOTS of people know it.
If you’re trying to raise awareness of something, don’t act like the reader is stupid if they don’t already understand. Insisting that something is obvious, especially when it is not, means any reader who does not understand it will likely perceive the comment as snobby. As does including snide remarks such as “in case you’ve been living under a rock”.
> Flaunting your ignorant anti-intellectualism isn’t a good look.
Why do you assume that I personally don’t know what s-expressions are just because I agree that they’re arcane? Labelling someone as an ignorant anti-intellectual just because they disagree with something you said isn’t a good look either.
Why don't you just go away and let other people have their interesting discussions without you, instead of bitterly complaining about things you purposefully know nothing about and refuse to learn? How does it hurt your delicate feelings to just shut up and not bitch and whine about discussions you're not interested in?
I think you’re assuming that all of the comments you’re talking about are written by the same person, when they’re not. I haven’t been attacking anyone, and I don’t think I’ve replied to anyone who’s tried to explain it.
> things you purposefully know nothing about and refuse to learn
Why do you still assume I don’t know what they are? I’ve already pointed out that my belief that s-expressions are arcane doesn’t mean I don’t know what they are.
As another illustration of my point, I just stumbled across this comment on another post:
> But maybe the whole "ease of use" budget is blown by using a Lisp in the first place.[0]
The fact is that Lisp syntax is understood by relatively few programmers, which meets the definition of arcane. You immediately flying off the handle when someone calmly points this out will not help your goal.
I, like most devs, know what Lisp is.
I, like most devs, just don't care.
I knew Lisp the way I know that that guy walking down the street is my neighbor Bob. But since I've never had a conversation with Bob, I actually have no idea who he is.
When I see Korean writing in hangeul, I know it is Korean writing, but can't read a letter of it (nor speak a word of Korean).
These examples are like knowing what Lisp is.
The thing I had not expected was how the knowledge in the Lisp world and its perspectives are very informative about a whole lot of non-Lisp!
They just don't care enough to invest time in it because it is niche. And proponents tend to tirelessly spam about it from their ivory towers like it's flawless and everyone who didn't learn it is somehow inferior, somehow justifying personal attacks like yours. Classy as usual.