> I will not quote, because I did not make myself very clear I think.
> I am not proposing a PicoLisp editor for the sake of an editor, or
> the writing of extensive PicoLisp only libraries.
Yes, I understand. But my original mail was just about that.
> I argue, (or tried - unsuccessfully) for the value of having
> a few examples of how to call C libraries.
Hmm, I think there are already quite some examples, for one in the
or in rosettacode:
> When I said curl, I
> did not mean curl, the application, but curl, the library.
Yes, I understood that too. Calling the external 'curl' program is
easier, though, and the overhead should not matter here.
> - Like a very tiny gameloop calling the SDL library.
> - Something using the curl library. (Not forking the curl binary.)
Yes, but see my comment above.
> - Something which uses a Fast Fourier Transform library
> [http://www.fftw.org/] .
> Or any idea, I just quickly tried to come up with something.
Good idea! There is also a rosetta task about that, iirc.
So, yes, examples are good and important. But this was not the reason
why I wrote the original posting. It was about _which_ libraries are
lacking, inhibiting PicoLisp to be useful. In addition to writing it in
the IRC channel, Henrik complained about that in several places, e.g.
Take for instance what I see as the biggest problem with PicoLisp;
the lack of existing libraries for doing common suff.
Having a Java version might help PL a lot on the popularity front,
it should completely bypass the catch 22 problem of low interest
due to to few libraries and few libraries due to low interest.
it makes sense that Clojure would win out over Pico-Lisp solely
for its compatibility with existing programming languages and
and this is what I don't agree about, and would like to discuss.