3 ms·
I understand that's simple in Lisp, but I also need interoperability, and that implies different languages, among other things. Perhaps the reason nobody's adop
by mojuba 19y ago
I understand that's simple in Lisp, but I also need interoperability, and that implies different languages, among other things. Perhaps the reason nobody's adopting Sexp's is that you will never get an answer from lispers, other than "you can do it in Lisp". Great, but I need C++, Perl, then C#, Java, PHP, Python and all kinds of crappy languages to support that format.
- tokipin 19y agolisp syntax is a lot simpler than XML. a basic lisp _interpreter_ would take maybe a night or three in any language, a mere parser much less. but why you don't see many such parsers is a different issue, not closely related to s-exp's themselves
- inklesspen 19y agoSo, why _don't_ you see many such parsers?
- omouse 19y agoGreat, but I need C++, Perl, then C#, Java, PHP, Python and all kinds of crappy languages to support that format. Lucky for you, Greenspun's Tenth Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_Tenth_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_Tenth_Rule) comes into play. All of those languages actually have Lisp embedded inside them: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."