Re: Pliant

["Ian Bicking" <bickiia@earlham.edu>]

> I'm happy to say that there is now a GPLed next-generation, reflexive,
> syntax-independent language: http://pliant.cams.ehess.fr/
> 
> Would you folks please take a look at this site with an open mind, and
> let it influence your actions?

I guess I don't see what's more syntax-independent about Pliant 
than Scheme.  The Scheme syntax is almost identicle to a parse 
tree, the lowest common denominator of syntax.

Though Guile hasn't been terribly successful at creating and 
maintaining alternate syntaxes, I don't think that would be terribly 
difficult.  Alternate *semantics* are quite difficult.  Syntax, IMHO, is 
not the most important aspect of a language.

All languages have an internal representation -- a parse tree, Java 
bytecodes, machine code, strings, or in Scheme's case, lists and 
symbols (this may not be the case with every Scheme 
implementation, but they hide that fact).  Why is Pliant's internal 
representation more neutral than Scheme's?

And from what I can see from the website, Pliant seems to 
emphasize efficiency a great deal -- I don't think Guile shares this 
emphasis, it is meant as a compliment to more efficient languages 
(like C).  Pliant seems to have a quite heavy compiling phase.

>From what I can tell, Pliant nearly ignores the all-important issue of 
debugging, taking its inspiration from the Algol languages which 
have always had this crazy notion that people can write Correct 
programs.  Of course, other people on this list disagree with me on 
the importance of debugging...

So, while Pliant looks interesting I don't think it is trying to do the 
same thing as Guile.

I do kind of like the Pliant (default) syntax.  Schemey semantics 
with a fairly compact syntax.


--
Ian Bicking <bickiia@earlham.edu>