Thanks @maximvl, good to know.
Help came to mind too. How would that work with multiple dispatch? I started hacking on mine, to steal @rebolek's best ideas, but I need to rethink a bit. Bolek's model may be a better fit for this, though now I'm intrigued about how mine might be used.
should be fixed soon, in short the conference is on latest Lisp-related technologies and researches, in Marbella, Spain 16-17 April
topics are meta-programming, language programming, live programming etc
I'm not ready to give a talk on such event yet ;) I want to see what's going on there first :)
it's happening every year so maybe on next one (with 1.0 released :D)
Has anyone got any experience with Racket ? This here https://beautifulracket.com/ talks about how good Racket is for building your own language - anyone got any thoughts on how it compares with building languages in Red ?
@guraaku i think the metaprograming capabilities of Lisp (via macros) leads naturally to Red, which seems (at least to me, i'm new to red, but am a long time clojurian) to be more powerful than most lisps for building your own language. Kernel is an exception (a lisp with Fexprs)...
thanks @pbaille , I'm pretty new to Red too - am using it to implement a language previously implemented via a handwritten recursive descent parser in C#. I'm looking at different options, came across the Racket thing and just wondered if Red enthusiasts had any view on how it compared to Lisps
So far, yes, I'm finding Red to be very flexible, the little I have read so far from that Racket book looks more complicatedf
red is really something... it let you do so much things... I don't have the big picture yet, but I have searched a new language for a while, and the only that makes me feel the kind of joy that i have experienced learning lisp is Red. Syntax is beautiful, and it the core language is so powerfull... in lisp you have a sublanguage for implementing macros which is not so fine (i spoke for clojure), in red, you can do the same things (at runtime or compile time) more easily it seems.
@guraaku Red inherits from Lisp, Forth, and Logo (also a Lisp), along with Self for the object model. It adds many new ideas, but offers many things Lisp does. This room is a good place to talk about what Lisp features match up, and how to offer things in Red (e.g. HOFs) that match Red's design.
@pbaille "in lisp you have a sublanguage for implementing macros which is not so fine" that is not true, the reader macros only simplify what you would write by hand but they are not necessary.
@JacobGood1 i was talking about the macro dsl ( ~ ' ` ~@ ...) which is not so fine in my opinion. My comparaison wasn't really between red macros vs lisp macros, but lisp macros vs red funcs (which can be viewed as runtime macros or fexprs i believe). I don't really know red macros, and for now don't feel the need to, since most commonly used lisp macros can be implemented with a simple func.
any of you have spent some time with shen?
Meanwhile I'm on the hook. :)
maybe he's not ready to handle an open source community
@pbaille for one thing, only mezzanine(I think that is what they are called) functions are available for the creation of macros, while in lisp the whole language is available including anything you or anyone else have made. Another problem is expansion, since there are no syntactic clues as to when the expansion should occur, it will occur, by default, wherever the macro's symbol is found. There are other problems as well, but these are the easiest to digest.
@9214 yes, I have it somewhere...
@JacobGood1 Forgive me i was not clear. I missused the word macro. For my practice, a macro is a meta-programming facility before being a compile time thing. so in fact i was comparing red functions with lisp macros. It does not make so much sense... With eval in lisp you can probably do what red functions do, also it is not encouraged, in red, code manipulation seems to be at the heart. In lisp (clojure specifically) macros and functions that call eval are marginal, and thinking of it, i'm not sure you can always tweak the environment before evaluating some expression in lisp at runtime (as the 'bind function of red seems to do). So the big thing is, in my point of view, the mindset in which red puts you (encouraging meta-programing) vs the mindset of lisp (functional?). in the red mindset macros are more interesting has a compile time unit than as a meta-programing tool, but in lisp it is not so clear... I hope to be clear, but i have some doubts! :p
Most people mean common lisp when using the word lisp, it does have a proprietary ownership of the .lisp extension after all =). Common lisp allows one to have environments of evaluation, which can be tweaked as much as desired. Lisp, historically, was not a very functional language at all, it was more of an oop one, oddly enough. As for as mindsets go, the clojure community does seem a little allergic to meta programming, however, the lisp community does not.
Don't get me wrong though, I really like rebol/red/ren-c, there is something to be said about the simplicity of meta-programming in red, and programming in general in red. I would not be here if I did not like it. I do not really get to program in the language all that much, but when I do, it is very enjoyable. One thing I love about rebol, is the fact that parsing is a fundamental feature of the language, it is pretty ridiculous that this is not the case for most languages.
