On Dec 6, 2007 1:48 AM, Joshua Gargus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it correct that we'll have a Lisp-like syntax at the lowest level
> > and a Smalltalk-like syntax above (with some syntax sugar like in
> > eToys?)?
> >
>
> (Leaving aside whether eToys should be considered syntactic sugar on
> top of Smalltalk, any more than C is syntactic sugar on assembler...)
Hehe. :)
Since we don't know what the eToys-inspired language will be like I
expressed it that way. What purpose will the eToys-inspired language
have? Will it be primarily for children or will it be more
general-purpose like Smalltalk?
Will most of the system be implemented in that eToys-inspired language?
In which language will the whole system be implemented such that it'll
only be about 20K lines?
> > Why not just pick Lisp syntax for the foundation and then build a
> > popular
> > syntax on top of that?
>
> A JavaScript parser has already been implemented, and an intention to
> support C has been declared. Are those popular enough?
I don't want C. I can use that already. I want a language that is much
more productive (that 20K lines thing, please! :), but with a nice and
math-like syntax for math operations and an overall simple syntax that
doesn't add unnecessary noise and doesn't look like ^#:!$%[{ or
()()((((())), but is actually readable.
> As I understand it, one of the big goals of the project is that a
> Smalltalk-like object can trivially send messages to objects generated-
> by/coded-in JavaScript. You can use any language that you want, yet
> still have perfectly convenient access to libraries written in other,
> more popular, languages.
What bothers me more is that if the lower-level language is based on
Smalltalk syntax then how are the other languages going to easily and
comfortably interface with that syntax? It'll probably have to look
like a mixture, similar to Objective C.
Bye,
Waldemar Kornewald
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
