Regarding Clojure: If the drogulus comes to anything then I'm building a working reference specification. I chose to write it in Python and comment ubiquitously

Regarding Clojure: If the drogulus comes to anything then I'm building a working reference specification. I chose to write it in Python and comment ubiquitously to make sure the code is easy to re-implement in other languages or on other platforms. Adding a dependency on Clojure would make this less likely to happen; the drogulus would instantly be linked to the JVM (and other platforms upon which Clojure runs). I've used Clojure before "for fun" and I like it - it's not a problem with the language per-se. Rather it's more a case of wanting Logos to be small, simple and "fit" the drogulus. Does this make sense? I agree with you about developing new languages. That's why I chose to re-implement a Lisp: I don't want to invent a new language. However, I do want a language that meets my need for "fit", simplicity, portability and compactness (I'd like my kids to be able to understand and program in Logos). To use a musical analogy, Logos is a re-arrangement an old classic (Lisp) for different ensembles. ;-) This is a work in progress and I need to push ideas in to code and get feedback as soon as possible. Only then will you be able to tell if I'm playing with fireworks or doing something impressive. Furthermore, while I have a very clear idea of what needs doing, I don't think this is a one-person job. That's why the biggest challenge for me right now is to transition the drogulus from a one person playtime project hacked together during a daily 40 minute commute in to London in to a functioning multi-person project with an active community of users. Now, that would be impressive! As always, I'm happy to answer questions and welcome constructive comment, critique and feedback. N.