4 ms·

You say you "don't understand", apparently disingenuously, because you then go on to announce what the argument supposedly is, object to it, change the subject

by gruseom 17y ago

You say you "don't understand", apparently disingenuously, because you then go on to announce what the argument supposedly is, object to it, change the subject (what, exactly, does Parenscript have to do with HTML?) and end with a red herring. As someone who works in Parenscript every day and hasn't had his coffee yet, I find that irritating.

KirinDave 17y ago
> (what, exactly, does Parenscript have to do with HTML?) Because we frequently see Parenscript used in isolation from sexp->html compilers? I sure don't. I'm not ending with a red herring, I'm saying you're creating a huge integration hassle with the rest of the web application world. Heck, even pattern-substitution templating systems are falling out of style as it becomes feasible to do structure-substitution templating. Most designers and javascript experts do not know lisp, and further don't want the equivalent of a wet blanket separating them from their medium. And I don't mean to upset you, but I also notice that you didn't exactly provide any justifications for parenscript. It's a cool project, and I've even used it for production work. However, I never felt it was anything more than a stopgap solution, and my impression from the CL community was that they didn't like HTML+JS because it wasn't lisp.
- gruseom 17y ago
  Parenscript excels at combining high-level abstraction with runtime efficiency in a web browser. It has to do with Javascript, not HTML, and if you've used it as much as you say, you know that perfectly well. Arguing that PS sucks for web apps because web designers don't know Lisp could hardly be more of a red herring.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- sedachv 17y ago
  "I'm not ending with a red herring, I'm saying you're creating a huge integration hassle with the rest of the web application world." How so? You're still getting regular JavaScript out of Parenscript. That's the whole point. "Heck, even pattern-substitution templating systems are falling out of style as it becomes feasible to do structure-substitution templating." What is pattern vs structure substitution? I've never come across those terms.

by gruseom 17y ago

KirinDave 17y ago

> (what, exactly, does Parenscript have to do with HTML?) Because we frequently see Parenscript used in isolation from sexp->html compilers? I sure don't. I'm not ending with a red herring, I'm saying you're creating a huge integration hassle with the rest of the web application world. Heck, even pattern-substitution templating systems are falling out of style as it becomes feasible to do structure-substitution templating. Most designers and javascript experts do not know lisp, and further don't want the equivalent of a wet blanket separating them from their medium. And I don't mean to upset you, but I also notice that you didn't exactly provide any justifications for parenscript. It's a cool project, and I've even used it for production work. However, I never felt it was anything more than a stopgap solution, and my impression from the CL community was that they didn't like HTML+JS because it wasn't lisp.

gruseom 17y ago
Parenscript excels at combining high-level abstraction with runtime efficiency in a web browser. It has to do with Javascript, not HTML, and if you've used it as much as you say, you know that perfectly well. Arguing that PS sucks for web apps because web designers don't know Lisp could hardly be more of a red herring.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
sedachv 17y ago
"I'm not ending with a red herring, I'm saying you're creating a huge integration hassle with the rest of the web application world." How so? You're still getting regular JavaScript out of Parenscript. That's the whole point. "Heck, even pattern-substitution templating systems are falling out of style as it becomes feasible to do structure-substitution templating." What is pattern vs structure substitution? I've never come across those terms.