wart

nice correspondence in syntax. Function calls just become a form of prefix operator. More details: http://arclanguage.org/item?id=16924 (particularly the last couple of paragraphs) I think a lot of the reason lispers look down at attempts to make indentation significant is that it's been bundled in the past with other syntax sugars to make Lisp more familiar to non-lispers. The goal shouldn't be familiarity, it should be power. More details on the infix syntax I designed: http://akkartik.name/post/wart

imize. (I think it might still be possible, but I lost patience partly because of the previous point.) I still like my infix scheme and have a particularly soft spot for the way wart allows keyword arguments anywhere in any function call. See, for example, the use of :from in a webserver implementation that makes everything so much clearer: https://github.com/akkartik/wart/blob/ce64882c69/071http_ser.... However, I've forced myself to harden my heart and ruthlessly ignore considerations of syntax, and focus on what I think are more impactful directions: conveying global rather than local structure of programs. More details: http://akkartik.name/about. In brief, I'm working on ways to super-charge automatic tests (by making them white-box, and by designing the core OS services to be easy to test) and version control (using the literate layers you noticed). It's a whole new way of programming where a) readers can ask "why not write this like this?", make a change, run all tests and feel confident that the change is ok if all tests pass; and b) readers can play with a simple version of the program running just layer 1, then gradually learn about new features by running layers 1+2, 1+2+3, and so on. --- "The problem is that it throws away the ability for the code to pull updates from library maintainers. If the import is "pinned" at commit f1d2d2f9, then you push a security-related patch to akkartik/bar, most existing code will stay vulnerable forever, because most code is never maintained after being written." I hadn't considered hard-coding hashes in imports, because it's historically been very hard to truly distinguish compatible changes from incompatible ones without introducing bugs. I think it's more important to give people control over upgrades than to try to improve over the current advisory+pull method of communicating security issues. You're right that most code is never maintained after being written. But most code is also utterly unimportant to anyone including the author. So that failure of security is ok :) Trying to force concern about security only increases the moral hazard -- people get used to other people thinking about their security for them. "were there any ambiguities with indentation-as-parens? I haven't thought about it rigorously, so I was just wondering if there are any corner cases to watch out for when I add it." The big insight, I think, is to not fear parentheses too much. A common failure mode of such approaches (like http://readable.sourceforge.net and http://dustycloud.org/blog/wisp-lisp-alternative) is to create too many new token types and lose the simplicity of lisp syntax. My approach instead is to a) just use parens sooner than look "outright barbarous" (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm), and b) take it a step further and disable all indent-sensitivity inside parentheses. Anyways, that's my two cents. The precise rules I use are at https://github.com/akkartik/wart/blob/master/004optional_par.... (They're really in the first couple of sentences there.) --- "Whoaaa, you use tangle/weave! How do you like it / what do you think about literate programming?" Like I said above, I like it very much, especially in combination with tests and a notion of layers. Here's my take on why literate programming has failed so far: http://akkartik.name/post/literate-programming

ould a language ecosystem be like without any backwards-compatibility guarantees, super easy to change and fork promiscuously? It's fun to find someone has been mulling over the same problems! I was considering taking Laarc in a similar direction: (import "akkartik/foo") That would check whether the folder "../foo/akkartik" exists, and if not, clone foo from github.com/akkartik/foo. It would also rewrite its own source code to look like: (import "akkartik/bar" "f1d2d2f924e986ac86fdf7b36c94bcdf32beec15") That means whenever someone clones your codebase, running the program would cause them to clone github.com/akkartik/bar using commit f1d2d2f9. So it's static linking, basically. It's a guarantee that "This source code will always work, the same way (+ 1 2) will always yield 3. You could copy-paste this source code into a gist, and whoever ran it would end up running the same program." That removes dependency hell / worrying about versions entirely. But it's not the right solution, and I've been searching for a better one. What do you think? The problem is that it throws away the ability for the code to pull updates from library maintainers. If the import is "pinned" at commit f1d2d2f9, then you push a security-related patch to akkartik/bar, most existing code will stay vulnerable forever, because most code is never maintained after being written. I was thinking of following that model, but using the convention that libraries are expected to use git tags in order to indicate major.minor.patch, and (import "akkartik/bar" "f1d2d2f924e986ac86fdf7b36c94bcdf32beec15") will bump itself to the next commit if it's tagged as an increment of the patch version. What kind of things have surprised you about Wart during development? Any unexpected pitfalls or interesting discoveries along the way? Thanks again for pointing it out! By the way, were there any ambiguities with indentation-as-parens? I haven't thought about it rigorously, so I was just wondering if there are any corner cases to watch out for when I add it.

rt/blob/3039fe6d03/literate/02.... I suspect reading other people's 'code' could be an order of magnitude easier and more convenient if 'code' included the right information. I'm still working to flesh this idea out.

~blank.title) (submit-page user url title showtext text retry*) (len> title title-limit*) (submit-page user url title showtext text toolong*) (and blank.url blank.text) (let dummy 34 (submit-page user url title showtext text bothblank*)) (let site sitename.url (or big-spamsites*.site recent-spam.site)) (msgpage user spammage*) (oversubmitting user ip 'story url) (msgpage user toofast*) (let s (create-story url process-title.title text user ip) (story-ban-test user s ip url) (when ignored.user (kill s 'ignored)) (submit-item user s) (maybe-ban-ip s) "newest")) There's a multi-branch if here, with lots of else ifs. But it's hard to see. In my toy dialect[1], I've added[2] colons as syntactic sugar that expands to nothing: (if no.user : (submit-login-warning url title showtext text) (~and (or blank.url valid-url.url) ~blank.title) : (submit-page user url title showtext text retry*) (len> title title-limit*) : (submit-page user url title showtext text toolong*) (and blank.url blank.text) : (let dummy 34 (submit-page user url title showtext text bothblank*)) (let site sitename.url (or big-spamsites*.site recent-spam.site)) : (msgpage user spammage*) (oversubmitting user ip 'story url) : (msgpage user toofast*) : (let s (create-story url process-title.title text user ip) (story-ban-test user s ip url) (when ignored.user (kill s 'ignored)) (submit-item user s) (maybe-ban-ip s) "newest")) [1] https://github.com/akkartik/wart#readme [2] http://arclanguage.org/item?id=16495

And tests on the lisp function will continue to pass if I did the translation right. There's a README (http://github.com/akkartik/wart#readme) that tries to convey my goals, but I haven't had too many people read it yet. I'd love to hear what isn't clear. You aren't supposed to know lisp to understand it.