21–30 of 31 posts
TXR Lisp: $ cat slurp-source.tl (defun slurp-source (path key) (let* ((lines (file-get-lines path)) (match (member-if (op contains key) lines)) (tail (rest match)) (indent (find-min-key tail : (op match-regex @1 #/\s*/))) (dedent (mapcar (op drop indent) tail))) `@{dedent "\n"}\n`)) $ txr -i slurp-source.tl 1> (put-string (slurp-source "slurp-source.tl" "let*")) (match (member-if (op contains key) lines)) (tail (rest…
I have done the same with React - but it gets messy. Something nice like in the post would be great for that.
Too often I see very poor Storybook sites in the wild (a web based design system visual explorer, somewhat like the screenshot in the post) where no thought was given to this exact problem.
Instead of something meaningful like in the post, I see:
() =>
For reference, this is easily the best design system I know of: https://seek-oss.github.io/braid-design-system/components/Te... I use this as a reference when I work on my own.
Just wait for using full blown CL macros then.
Just wait for using full blown CL macros then.
CL macros are more or less the same as Clojure macros and neither hold a candle to modern Scheme or Racket macros :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CL macros are more or less the same as Clojure macros and neither hold a candle to modern Scheme or Racket macros :)
Eh? Pretty sure they're more powerful. And readable, unlike the Scheme ones that look as elegant and well integrated as a caravan being pulled by a Porsche =).
Note this is ignoring anything about the reader, for which Racket has substantially more powerful functionality around than Clojure.
sometimes a vector is just a vector, but sometimes it’s a UI component and shows the structure of the UI.
sometimes a vector is just a vector, but sometimes it’s a UI component and shows the structure of the UI. Easily the worst aspect of Clojure. Everything is an untyped map or an untyped vector. Your editor can't tell the difference between a vector of keywords and some DSL for a macro. Things like this make Clojure a nightmare to refactor and scale poorly relative to languages like TypeScript.
People now prefer using maps - even if it's a bit more verbose. Not sure why records fell out of fashion. You get the terseness of hiccup and the named keys of maps
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CL macros are more or less the same as Clojure macros and neither hold a candle to modern Scheme or Racket macros :)
Eh? Pretty sure they're more powerful. And readable, unlike the Scheme ones that look as elegant and well integrated as a caravan being pulled by a Porsche =).
Everybody seems to think scheme macros means syntax-rules. You can get something pretty cl-esque with implicit renaming macros, but with hygiene as opt-out instead of opt-in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh? Pretty sure they're more powerful. And readable, unlike the Scheme ones that look as elegant and well integrated as a caravan being pulled by a Porsche =).
Writing defmacro in syntax-case is simple. Writing syntax-case with defmacro is not. Everybody seems to think scheme macros means syntax-rules. You can get something pretty cl-esque with implicit renaming macros, but with hygiene as opt-out instead of opt-in.