Dear Paul, when I say its syntax is its best friend, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
Now, say I fork lisp and change one little thing:
(defun foo (n) (lambda (i) (incf n i)))
to this:
[defun foo [n] [lambda [i] [incf n i]]]
or even this:
{defun foo {n} {lambda {i} {incf n i}}}
or how about this?
<defun foo <n> <lambda <i> <incf n i>>>
Hmm, trees are powerful, no matter how they are expressed huh?
What if we can represent the same trees using colons and commas as delimiters?
:defun foo:n, :lambda:i, :incf n i.
Maybe spice it up a bit using periods as recursive closing delimiter.
See? still powerful trees!
Between common lisp and colon lisp, I still use the latter.
Love is blindness.
Now, say I fork lisp and change one little thing:
(defun foo (n) (lambda (i) (incf n i)))
to this:
[defun foo [n] [lambda [i] [incf n i]]]
or even this:
{defun foo {n} {lambda {i} {incf n i}}}
or how about this?
<defun foo <n> <lambda <i> <incf n i>>>
Hmm, trees are powerful, no matter how they are expressed huh?
What if we can represent the same trees using colons and commas as delimiters?
:defun foo:n, :lambda:i, :incf n i.
Maybe spice it up a bit using periods as recursive closing delimiter.
See? still powerful trees!
Between common lisp and colon lisp, I still use the latter.
Love is blindness.