4 ms·
Little is L, we used to call it L and got beat up because you can't google it. Supposedly googling little-lang is better. If you build it with our makefile th
by luckydude 11y ago
Little is L, we used to call it L and got beat up because you
can't google it. Supposedly googling little-lang is better.
If you build it with our makefile then it will live next to tcltk 8.6. If you don't then it will want to dynamically link in some libs and it will get the wrong ones and barf.
- jrapdx3 11y agoI remember being interested in L when I read about it a few years ago, so it's great that it's open-sourced now. Should be fun to try it out. I'll give the makefile a whirl. As for the name, "L" would be hard to Google, though "C" and "Scheme" are too. While I guess "little" would be somewhat easier to search for than "L", it sure isn't as obvious as "Clojure" or "fortran". Outstanding names are hard to invent.
- luckydude 11y agoLet us know what you think. This thread will be fleeting, we are on the IRC channel as well as the forum at https://users.bitkeeper.org/c/little-language https://users.bitkeeper.org/c/little-language The IRC channel seems most active.
- grok2 11y agoIt's not very clear from the page -- does it work on Windows at all?
- luckydude 11y agoIt has for years when built as part of BitKeeper, I think there are some issues in how we open sourced it. It's being discussed over on the forum, you might look there.
- eggy 11y agoThat's a shame, since I program in J, and I've tried the free K version. L would have made my PL list quite funny! I'll take a look at it, since I have used tcl/tk in the past.