3 ms·

Most people are allergic for lisp likes. Not sure why but it has since always been blocked. I even did a lispy but with <> instead 20 years ago and that was OK

Most people are allergic for lisp likes. Not sure why but it has since always been blocked. I even did a lispy but with <> instead 20 years ago and that was OK (it was the xml for everything hype) while with () it was rejected. I had a talk with the cto of one of our bigger infra structure partners and he had exactly the same issue, so he replaced the () with [] and suddenly it was fine. So he has had scheme in their products for over 10 years but with [] because people are allergic to (). I can obviously do the same with racket but if no () then I rather have another syntax all together.

valenterry 5y ago
Ah, it's sad to hear that. People can be so emotional, just because of a bit of syntax. But since you have full control, you could introduce some extra syntactic sugar as well and desugar it into regular lisp/racket syntax before parsing, no? As an alternative with a completely different syntax, I found Scala to be extremely nice for building DSLs. Probably the best typesafe language for DSLs out there. It's only really good on the JVM though.