3 ms·

Bel?

• edanm 3y ago
  Arc, iirc.
  • dang 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23483715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23483715
    • edanm 3y ago
      Are you doing the actual arc maintenance of HN? From your comment in that thread it seems like you do that + the moderation (how you have the time, I have no idea). Do you come from a background of Lisps? I just learned my first lisp (Clojure) this past year.
      • dang 3y ago
        Yes, I work on the code when I have time, and you are right—there is never enough of it. My original background in programming wasn't in Lisp, but when I read pg's essays about Lisp, I decided to learn it, and since then I...switched over.
        • edanm 3y ago
          Interesting. I've wanted to learn a Lisp since reading his essays almost 15 years ago, but never had a chance until this year. Unfortunately it wasn't the best circumstances to learn Clojure - I was taking ownership of a codebase that had lost all its developers, and was fairly complicated. I wonder whether I should try to learn Arc for fun sometime.
          • dang 3y ago
            I think Arc is fun! But the community is small and only intermittently active (to put it mildly): http://arclanguage.org/forum http://arclanguage.org/forum. If I were you I'd probably take up Racket or Common Lisp, depending on your tastes. If you prefer PLT style hacking, I'd go with Racket and if you prefer more systems style hacking, I'd go with SBCL. Also, if you like Emacs, I'd definitely go with Slime + SBCL. There is also a lot of newer-generation Emacs/SBCL tooling that I haven't gotten around to yet. Arc is closer semantically to Common Lisp than it is to Racket - for example the way Arc uses T and NIL is very CL, not Scheme. Personally I find Arc more usable than CL for a bunch of reasons, such as (1) hashtables are far easier, and (2) it's a Lisp-1 rather than a Lisp-2.