3 ms·
Problem is, any project now that can declare a dependency on 3.0.10 or higher can easily use this. There is a psychological difference between "I can add wisp
by kazinator 2y ago
Problem is, any project now that can declare a dependency on 3.0.10 or higher can easily use this.
There is a psychological difference between "I can add wisp to my Guile project and write in it" and "I can count on Guile supporting wisp out of the box", and that difference will cause the insane whitespace nonsense to run rampant in Guile codebases.
Also, as of today, you're no longer a fully competent Guile developer if you don't know how to read and maintain wisp.
- whartung 2y agoDoes Racket suffer from this? Doesn't Racket support a bunch of different syntax and such? (Mind, I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to this, I don't even like the mixing and matching of [] and ().)
- petre 2y agoWith Racket one can roll their own syntax.
- bitwize 2y agoTell me you don't know much about Guile without telling me you don't know much about Guile. The whole vision of Guile from the get-go was to give it the ability to transpile languages programmers liked, such as Perl or Python, into Scheme and thus become a universal extension runtime for GNU software. That dream got closer to reality with Guile 2.0 and its multi-language "compiler tower" which already supports ECMAScript and a subset of Emacs Lisp. But Scheme is Guile's native tongue, so you don't have to learn how to use those in order to be a "fully competent Guile developer", and you wouldn't have to learn Wisp either.