4 ms·

Firstly, Racket is not a Scheme. There are reader macros and all that bells and whistles. Does this look like S-expressions to you? https://github.com/soegaard

by sklogic 11y ago

Firstly, Racket is not a Scheme. There are reader macros and all that bells and whistles. Does this look like S-expressions to you? https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal Secondly, even most Schemes allow to use [ ] and { } in addition to ( ).

ahoge 11y ago
> Firstly, Racket is not a Scheme. Did I talk about Racket anywhere? > Does this look like S-expressions to you? "MiniPacal implemented in Racket" Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go? https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro http://research.swtch.com/shmacro http://research.swtch.com/shmacro Totally legit "C".
- sklogic 11y ago
  > Did I talk about Racket anywhere? This is a thread about Racket, if you did not notice. > Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go? This is exactly what Lisps are about. You've got a nearly raw AST at the bottom (S-expressions) and then you build up a hierarchy of languages on top of it.