On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:33:08 +0200 =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des_at_des.no> wrote: > "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost_at_cordula.ws> writes: > > After all LISP-like syntax is *still* more common and prevalent > > than Lua, e.g. in Elisp, guile, esh, scsh and a lot of other apps > > that use it as a small language. So we can expect more users > > to be at least partially familiar with it. And there *are* lightweight > > MIT- or BSD-licensed scheme interpreters out there too: > > Considering that the majority of people who might be interested in using > this know *neither* Lisp *nor* Lua, my vote is for Lua, because people > who are familiar with neither will be more open to learning Lua, which > resembles other languages they already know, than Lisp, which doesn't. [Couldn't resist responding but my last message on this tangent] If you are "open to learning" a C like language, one can provide a C like frontend syntax to most of Scheme & to a degreee similar to lua. Like C/Lua etc. Scheme is also a block structured language. Apart from syntax, the key differences are: - everything is an expression. - variables are not typed (anything can be assigned to a var) - functions can be anonymous, nested and returned from other functions - symbols & lists are built-in unlike in C - no built-in structs, unions or ptrs - a very powerful macro facility - support for continuations ksm for instance implements a C like syntax. See http://square.umin.ac.jp/hchang/ksm/ref/ksm_13.html [Yes, I am aware of Dylan and what happened to it but still think this can be a useful effort]Received on Fri Aug 20 2010 - 19:06:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:06 UTC