3 ms·
I think some comments are missing the upside of it being precisely Rust, without any new semantics. If you want lisp that compiles to machine code, Common Lisp
by hawkice 6mo ago
I think some comments are missing the upside of it being precisely Rust, without any new semantics. If you want lisp that compiles to machine code, Common Lisp can get reasonably efficient. The purpose of bringing Rust into it is to surface Rust-specific semantics -- which many people quite like!
- j16sdiz 6mo ago[flagged]
- hawkice 6mo agoIncorrect, and mean-spirited. Come on.
- IncreasePosts 6mo agoFor what it's worth I thought it was a nice comment and I saw no sign of AI in it
- busfahrer 6mo agoSo I'm guessing it's sort of like Fennel, which consciously doesn't completely hide its underlying Lua runtime? https://fennel-lang.org/ https://fennel-lang.org/
- larodi 6mo agothis is actually very interesting approach to syntax remixing, while keeping the ontology