Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Rust but Lisp

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Show HN: Rust but Lisp

#71

Post by foresterre »

ecto wrote: post #23

Readers may enjoy my lisp, Loon, which takes heavy inspiration from Rust https://loonlang.com/guide/ownership

And if you like Lisp and ownership, there's also Carp [1]. It doesn't mimic Rust's features and naming schemes though.

Carp is about 10 years old and has some cool demo's (like SDL for gamedev).

> The key features of Carp are the following:

> * Automatic and deterministic memory management (no garbage collector or VM)

> * Inferred static types for great speed and reliability

> * Ownership tracking enables a functional programming style while still using mutation of cache-friendly data structures under the hood

> * No hidden performance penalties – allocation and copying are explicit > * Straightforward integration with existing C code

> * Lisp macros, compile time scripting and a helpful REPL

[1]: https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp

Re: Show HN: Rust but Lisp

#73

Post by tmtvl »

Reminds me of when I brainstormed an S-expression-based alternative syntax for Rust in the comments on an article about Rust's syntax: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41399712>.

Re: Show HN: Rust but Lisp

#75

Post by busfahrer »

hawkice wrote: post #7

I think some comments are missing the upside of it being precisely Rust, without any new semantics. If you want lisp that compiles to machine code, Common Lisp can get reasonably efficient. The purpose of bringing Rust into it is to surface Rust-specific semantics -- which many people quite like!

So I'm guessing it's sort of like Fennel, which consciously doesn't completely hide its underlying Lua runtime?

https://fennel-lang.org/

Re: Show HN: Rust but Lisp

#76

Post by larodi »

hawkice wrote: post #7

I think some comments are missing the upside of it being precisely Rust, without any new semantics. If you want lisp that compiles to machine code, Common Lisp can get reasonably efficient. The purpose of bringing Rust into it is to surface Rust-specific semantics -- which many people quite like!

this is actually very interesting approach to syntax remixing, while keeping the ontology

Re: Show HN: Rust but Lisp

#77

Post by goldsteinq »

I think this misses the point of LISP macros. LISP macros are just functions written in LISP, so here macros need to be functions written in Rust-but-LISP, but it is not so. In fact, I think this macro language lacks conditionals, so it’s not even Turing-complete.
Post reply on HN